I'm still Jewish!
Posted on 02/23/2016 8:17:35 AM PST by Salvation
And Larry, Shemp and Moe; too!
Ha ha HA!
Even I cannot make up THIS kinda stuff!
I'm still Jewish!
If that were true would it mean that Jesus was no longer a Jew when he “became” a Catholic?
And they fast twice a week; too.
You've got a hard task ahead of you; considering plain, Catholic teaching...
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
--Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
How does Rome 'explain' why Jesus did NOT get correct results the first time??
Mark 8:22-25
Me; too!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
What?
I've been PHISHED!!!
It ain't working.
But; there maybe lurkers (masocists!) that keep reading these endless shadow boxing adventures and can make their OWN decisions over which side has been showing fact without extraneous rules and regulations tossed in.
He DID?
When I read it; He was observing the PASSOVER.
Let’s see...
...do I want an apple or and orange?
And it can NEVER be shaken off or wished away!
Well that too
He certainly did not transubstantiate His Self into something called the eucharist
Hmmm. Think of that . . . a Catholic Jew . . .
Hm. Here we go. Time to stir the pot again. It was cooling off . . .
That is an odd response to the very words of the Messiah; I notice this occurred many times in the Gospels as well where certain religious just could not restrain themselves. One would do better to remain silent than to respond as you have, inviting your colleagues to mischief.
If one simply googles "how did the bible get chapters and verses" one might find:
The original manuscripts did not contain the chapter and verse divisions in the numbered form familiar to modern readers.
...
Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro is often given credit for first dividing the Latin Vulgate into chapters in the real sense, but it is the arrangement of his contemporary and fellow cardinal Stephen Langton who in 1205 created the chapter divisions which are used today. They were then inserted into Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the 15th century. Robert Estienne (Robert Stephanus) was the first to number the verses within each chapter, his verse numbers entering printed editions in 1551 (New Testament) and 1571 (Hebrew Bible).[16]
The division of the Bible into chapters and verses has received criticism from some traditionalists and modern scholars. Critics state that the text is often divided in an incoherent way, or at inappropriate rhetorical points, and that it encourages citing passages out of context. Nevertheless, the chapter and verse numbers have become indispensable as technical references for Bible study.
Since it is now a requirement of the RM that everyone cite the chapter, verse, and version when they post scripture, I do it this way to give full credit, as it were, to whom those who insituted it. The former was a Catholic Bishop/Cardinal and the latter was a Catholic who became a Protestant. It is an curious mirror to the RF debates occurring every day on the RF ...
You are, of course, welcome to this information in the hopes it will aid you in your pilgrimage.
| John | |||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | English: Young's Literal Translation | |
| John 6 |
|||
| 63. | 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. | το πνευμα εστιν το ζωοποιουν η σαρξ ουκ ωφελει ουδεν τα ρηματα α εγω λαλω υμιν πνευμα εστιν και ζωη εστιν | the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life; |
"The flesh does not profit" can be taken as "the flesh is of no use" (Scott-Liddell), in which case some think it speaks of the same "flesh" as in the rest of the chapter, Jesus'. But the natural reading is that the food that Christ will give feeds the spirit and gives life, rather than nourishes the recipient's flesh. Christ's concern was the same as St. Paul's concern expressed over actual behaviors: that people would turn the Eucharist into a food festival.
The meaning does not change much if η σαρξ is taken as Jesus' flesh. In either case, the concern of cannibalism is eliminated and the spiritual aspect of the Eucharist is stressed.
To use this verse to say that Jesus spent much of the chapter insisting that His flesh is "meat indeed" and then changes His mind is ridiculous, as the words of the Institution at the Last Supper are spoken after this scene took place and yet the same directness: "this is my body".
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.