Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
“I didn’t see post 478.”
okay.
While the flesh of an animal was cleared to eat, the drinking of the blood was not.
However, the flesh of a man nor the blood of a human was never given the ok to consume.
However, the main issue is the concept of the Mass being the same sacrifice as that of the Cross per the Baltimore catechism.
Every mass, another sacrifice contradicting Hebrews. Christ does not come down from Heaven when called by the priest at the mass (O'Brien..Faith of Millions, p256)....He's at the right hand side of the the Father where He will be until the Second Coming.
26For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
28For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. Hebrews 7:26-28.
24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
28so Christ , will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. Hebrews 9:24-28
I'm happy for those out there who have been edified and who can easily see how we know we can be confident in the revealed word of God that He has protected and preserved from every slander and slight invented by those who have more faith in their religion than in HIS word. The Holy Spirit teaches us the truth and opens our hearts to recognize the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.
“While the flesh of an animal was cleared to eat, the drinking of the blood was not.”
That still changes nothing about the fact that the prohibition was lifted.
“However, the flesh of a man nor the blood of a human was never given the ok to consume.”
No one was consuming the flesh of a man nor the blood of a man. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the God-man and it is consumed sacramentally and at the express order of God Himself. No law or prohibition is, therefore, violated.
“However, the main issue is the concept of the Mass being the same sacrifice as that of the Cross per the Baltimore catechism.”
No, actually it is not the main issue.
“Every mass, another sacrifice contradicting Hebrews.”
Nope. Hebrews says Jesus gave ONE sacrifice. The Mass is the re-presentation of that ONE sacrifice.
As always, you’re wrong. I’m sure you’ll keep throwing in the kitchen sink - anything to change the topic yet again.
“As is typical, nothing I say makes any difference with you.”
You know the really sad thing is that you can’t even see the hypocrisy of your own complaint there. I can post about historic Christianity - that Christianity established by Christ Himself - all the live long day and you will, undoubtedly, choose your own phony, man-made, modern day, latter sect, right? But again not seeing the irony you say, “nothing I say makes any difference with you.”
“Every one of your challenges HAS been met but you refuse to accept the answers.”
Not a single one of my challenges was even close to met by you or anyone else EVER.
“Apparently, even a question I ask means I am “dead wrong”.”
When the question is so bizarrely out of the realm of possibility, yes, because it demonstrates one of only possibilities in this world: 1) gross misunderstanding on your part, or, 2) a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I said. Which was it? Have you noticed I DO NOT DO THAT DO YOU?
Again...”To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.”(John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
“What a lousy way to have a discussion.”
Again, the irony or hypocrisy.
“I’m happy for those out there who have been edified and who can easily see how we know we can be confident in the revealed word of God that He has protected and preserved from every slander and slight invented by those who have more faith in their religion than in HIS word.”
See, there you go again: “invented by those who have more faith in their religion than in HIS word.” Just like I said: “1) gross misunderstanding on your part, or, 2) a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I said.”
“The Holy Spirit teaches us the truth and opens our hearts to recognize the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.”
And yet that isn’t happening for you and I certainly am not blaming the Holy Spirit but you’ll probably falsely claim I am. It’s what you do.
Nope.. No change of topic needed. Was providing the Biblical reason why the Mass was non-Biblical using the words of Hebrews and Catholicism.
That still changes nothing about the fact that the prohibition was lifted.
The prohibition on unclean flesh was lifted....not the drinking of blood. Paul, IIRC, said it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols but if it caused a brother to stumble not to do so.
I'd think that would have a great deal of importance in this discussion.
In the OT the blood of the sacrifice was never consumed.
But keep spinning away.
You asserted, yet again: “And that just proves my point: It was about offending JEWS.” And again your point is wrong. When the commandment was given in Genesis it was about NOT OFFENDING GOD. It is GOD Who put the life of the vreature in their blood, not Jews. Your invincible ignorance is spewing out all over this thread! Your blind sycophancy for satan’s lies is almost astonishing.
“You asserted, yet again: “And that just proves my point: It was about offending JEWS.” And again your point is wrong.”
Nope. What I said is absolutely correct - that’s why St. Paul says what he says in 1 Corinthians.
“When the commandment was given in Genesis it was about NOT OFFENDING GOD.”
OT dietary laws no longer apply. Hence, if you want a rare steak, you can enjoy it.
“It is GOD Who put the life of the vreature in their blood, not Jews.”
It amazes me how you misrepresent what people say in your apparent desperation. All the OT dietary laws are no more. You want some pork rinds? Have at it.
“Your invincible ignorance is spewing out all over this thread!”
Actually, I’ve been right about every single thing so far.
“Your blind sycophancy for satan’s lies is almost astonishing.”
God is Satan - and it’s God Himself, Jesus, Who released us from the OT dietary laws. Enjoy your black pudding!
Believe Jesus: Matthew 15:11; Mark 7:15. You keep spewing misrepresentations and false accusations of “blind sycophancy for satan’s lies”. You’re not what you eat in this case, but what you falsely say about someone else.
What happened to paragraphs?
Acts 1519“Therefore, I have decided that we should not trouble these gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead, we should write to them to keep away from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from anything strangled,g and from blood.h 21 21After all, Moses has had people to proclaim him in every city for generations, and on every Sabbath his books arei read aloud in the synagogues.”
James the oldest brother of Jesus was leader among the Apostle's at this time. He cites that the LAWS of GOD had been heard all over the world because there were synagogues in which the admonitions of GOD were read regularly.
The Catholic Apologist would have us believe James was citing this so the new converts to CHRISTIANITY would not offend Jews! The apologist has no regard for GOD and why GOD instituted the ban on taking the blood!
So the Council of Apostles sent the following letter tot he New Converts to Christianity, converted gentiles mostly, due to the missionary preaching of Paul and his companions:
22 Then the apostles, the elders, and the whole church decided to choose some of their men to send with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. These were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, who were leaders among the brothers. 23 They wrote this letter for them to deliver: “From: The apostles and the elders, your brothers To: Their gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings. 24 We have heard that some men, coming from us without instructions from us, have said things to trouble you and have unsettled you. 25 So we have unanimously decided to choose men and send them to you with our dear Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas to tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place on you any burden but these essential requirements: 29 to keep away from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from anything strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you avoid these things, you will do well. Goodbye.”
Note please, James says it seemed good to THE HOLY SPIRIT and the Apostles to issue these admonitions. The Catholic Apologist would have us believe GOD is double-minded. The god of Catholiciism issues a prohibition against taking the blood of the creature --for the Life is in the blood; the blood is not the life, the life is IN the blood. James notes that the writings of Moses (which include the prohibition given in Genesis, long before the Ten Commandments were penned by the finger of GOD) had been read regularly in all the cities to receive this letter. Since GOD knows the end from the beginning, we can contrast the god of Catholiciism with the GOD WHO IS: the god the apologist represents would issue that prohibition then cancel it but influence the Apostles' Council to pass the prohibition along to the ones receiving the letter!
Sorry for the delayed response. Such is the life of a truck driver that still lives offline when away from home.
**Except Jesus died and people prayed to Him.**
As I said, He showed the example while he lived the mortal life, by praying to God only. Since he is filled with God, and given all power by the Father since his resurrection, we can pray to him.
**That’s not an example of any misunderstanding of scripture on MY part. Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.**
You and your likeminded fellows use passages, such as Mary stepping in, to make it known to Jesus, that the wedding had run out of wine, as though she is to forever be a mediator between the mortals and God.
The story of Bathsheba being mediator is used as well, even though it turned out really bad for the man making the request.
**There is no number attached to the Mass. Christ wanted it done; we do it.**
Does your organization not stress that it is for eternal life? Yet it is not mentioned in DETAIL in the book of Acts, where conversions were the norm; and only a couple of times in detail in all of the epistles, which were sent to possibly a dozen different locations. The apostles knew that repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and being filled with the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead would literally put “Christ in you, the hope of glory”.
False. I never said that “God the Son” is either a fragment of a sentence or a sentence............................This is called the English language and that’s how it works.**
Scriptural phrase: God the Father
not: the Father of God
Scriptural phrase: the Son of God
not: God the Son
Scriptural phrase: the Spirit of God
not: God the Holy Spirit (Ghost)
The Father is not OF God, the Father IS God. John 4:23,24
The Son is OF God, and testified of it often. One of my favorite references:
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Jn 20:17
I have other references to add, but have outdoor chores to get done. Have a good day!
“What happened to paragraphs?”
They’re in the same place your logical arguments are...oh, they never showed up.
If you could be honest, what is the purpose of your insults?
“Sorry for the delayed response. Such is the life of a truck driver that still lives offline when away from home.”
I understand.
“As I said, He showed the example while he lived the mortal life, by praying to God only. Since he is filled with God, and given all power by the Father since his resurrection, we can pray to him.”
And to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, and to the Saints.
**That’s not an example of any misunderstanding of scripture on MY part. Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.**
“You and your likeminded fellows use passages, such as Mary stepping in, to make it known to Jesus, that the wedding had run out of wine, as though she is to forever be a mediator between the mortals and God.”
As expected, you failed to post a verse that I am actually misunderstanding. As I said, “Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.” Can you do it or not?
“The story of Bathsheba being mediator is used as well, even though it turned out really bad for the man making the request.”
As I said, “Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.” Can you do it or not?
**There is no number attached to the Mass. Christ wanted it done; we do it.**
“Does your organization not stress that it is for eternal life?”
What is “it’? I don’t know what you’re referring to since the antecedent would be “your organization”.
“Yet it is not mentioned in DETAIL in the book of Acts, where conversions were the norm; and only a couple of times in detail in all of the epistles, which were sent to possibly a dozen different locations.”
And no where in the Bible is sola scriptura mentioned and when sola fide is mentioned it is clearly a condemnation. So what’s your point? John 6, and the gospels clearly point to the Mass. Is Jesus saying it not enough suddenly?
“The apostles knew that repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and being filled with the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead would literally put “Christ in you, the hope of glory”.”
And none of that negates the “breaking of bread”.
“Scriptural phrase: God the Father. not: the Father of God”
Who is using “Father of God”? You’re literally making something up that no one is saying.
“Scriptural phrase: the Son of God. not: God the Son”
Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is, therefore, God the Son.
“Scriptural phrase: the Spirit of God. not: God the Holy Spirit (Ghost)”
The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is, therefore, God the Holy Spirit.
“The Father is not OF God, the Father IS God. John 4:23,24”
No one is saying the Father is OF God. Your problem is with understanding English.
“The Son is OF God, and testified of it often. One of my favorite references:”
All three Divine Persons are God. It’s just that simple.
“I have other references to add, but have outdoor chores to get done. Have a good day!”
I will. I hope you do too. It’s a shame that your lack of knowledge about English is actually interfering with your knowledge of God. Work on that.
“If you could be honest, what is the purpose of your insults?”
If you could be honest - and not hypocritical - what is the purpose of your insults such as:
“For those who might stumble onto this thread and believe the vald is correct” [That’s in Post #533 and although addressed to All, it was not sent to me even though you’re clearly referring to me as “the vald”].
Or how about this beauty from you in Post #530: “Your invincible ignorance is spewing out all over this thread! Your blind sycophancy for satan’s lies is almost astonishing.”
So, physician, heal thy self and come clean: Why do you post insults repeatedly and then hypocritically ask why someone else does it?
Couldn’t answer the question eh. That is symptomatic ... and what you take as an insult is a warning not an insult. Eevery Christian is called to warn those who are perishing.
And we all thought verga had left! :)
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.