Pray! : The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.

Anti-Catholic asks:

The Last Supper is not the Sacrifice on the Cross

WHEN did Jesus cry out to Abba to remove this cup from Him : before the Supper of before the Cross?

WHEN was the Sin of believers paid for: at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was propitiation made: at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was the Blood of Christ shed for our forgiveness ; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was the wrath of God appeased : at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was he pierced for our transgressions, When was he crushed for our iniquities; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN did the Lord lay on him the iniquity of us all; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN did God make Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God;at the Supper or on the Cross?

At what "event " did these thing happen?

Your questions are loaded with misunderstanding. The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.

You see, the Last Supper is the first Mass. And the Mass is our Passover. In order to understand the New Testament Mass, you must understand the Old Testament Passover.

1. In the Old Testament,

a. The Passover Lamb was killed and
b. The Passover Lamb was eaten.

Those are not two sacrifices, but one. The Passover Lamb was killed in order that it might be eaten.

2. The same in the New Testament.

a. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God.
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

b. Jesus Christ is also our Passover, sacrificed for us.
1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

c. He is sacrificed for us in order that He may be eaten:
John 6:57
King James Version (KJV)
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

d. Therefore, Christ released the grace of God from the Cross. But unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of God, you do not apply those graces to your life. And you will die in your sins:
53 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.

e. And finally, the Crucifixion is the Sacrifice of the Mass which we participate in when we eat the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

112 comments:

AnonymousDecember 19, 2017 at 8:00 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousDecember 19, 2017 at 9:39 PM
This post unfortunately reflects the error of Dispensationalism. It is erroneous both in the Biblical data and in the historical data.

For example, Jesus made a prophecy that the Temple and Jerusalem would be flattened in 70AD, and that's precisely what happened. For approximately 1900 years, there was no Israel and Palestine was mostly Christian and Muslim that whole time. Given this, your whole thesis would suggest God has indeed failed to keep His promises for 1900 years. But Catholics and most non-American Protestants have never been Dispensationalist, so we've always seen the Divine Judgment of 70AD to be pretty definitive. The texts that speak of the promises being "eternal" are not to be understood as literally eternal, but rather for a long time, which is why even though circumcision was said to be eternal the council in Acts 15 deemed it was not. God delivered on all his promises, the problem is that after repeated disobedience God also promised punishments. Rejecting the Messiah is no small beans, and God will not bless anyone who rejects His Son.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Jesse AlbrechtDecember 30, 2017 at 3:53 PM
Hello De Maria,

Darn it! It looks like you've been hit by some blogger trolls. I (and a few other bloggers) have encountered the same dilemma as of lately.

But anyway, I was wondering what your stance is on interfaith dialogue? Do you stand for it, neutral, or against? Thank you for your thoughts.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaFebruary 28, 2018 at 8:03 PM
Truth is absolute.

Psalm 14:1

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good
ReplyDelete
Replies
M.K.April 1, 2018 at 3:28 PM
DM: Anti-Catholic asks:

MK: I trust you reserve for yourself the logo, "Anti-Protestant"?
Good. I would hate to think you were a hypocrite.

DM: The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.

MK: However, the way Catholicism WISHES to unite them is illogical beyond belief. Rome teaches that Jesus gave himself to God the Father in sacrifice at the Last Supper BEFORE he went to Calvary (as per the Council of Trent) and true Christians will have none of it regardless of the sinister explanations you use to try to explain it.

DM: You see, the Last Supper is the first Mass.

MK: Nothing could be further from the truth; nevertheless, I will tolerate your defense tactics for the sake of the gentle reader.

DM: In the Old Testament, the Passover Lamb was eaten.

MK: While that much is true, it leaves TOO much to be desired and insults the gentle reader by not giving them the opposite point of view which God demands (Prov 18:17). What you omit to say is that the SIN OFFERING was never to be eaten (Leviticus 4). Was not Jesus a sin-offering, De Maria? That being so, we have two choices: Either eat Jesus the passover lamb (literally), or eat Jesus the sin offering (metaphorically).

*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because the prohibition against drinking blood has never been abolished and is repulsive to all human beings.
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because the universal revulsion against cannibalism leads us rather, to "have FAITH in his blood" (Romans 3:25), not drink it, which eliminates the need for Transubstantiation altogether.
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because Scripture is crystal clear that the birthright of every born-again Christian has the irrevocable promise of the triune God to be with us via the means of the Holy Spirit and not the Eucharist (Matt 18:20, John 14:21-23, Acts 2:38, 8:15, 9:17, 11:16, 19:2, Rev 3:20).
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because God signified his presence in the temple by filling it with the cloud of his glory (1 Kings 8:10-11); but now he lives in his people by filling them with the Holy Spirit by simple faith and NOT by the complicated and controversial Eucharist (John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13, Romans 5:5, 8:11, 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor 4:7, 6:16, 13:5; Galatians 2:20, 3:2, 4:6, Eph 1:13, Eph 2:21-22, 1 Peter 2:5, 1 John 2:27).
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because Rome’s command to drink “unbloody blood” is just as oxymoronic as asking us to ride a “horseless horse”! (CCC 1367).
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because Jesus is not a liar. When he said, “This is my blood” after the supposed “consecration”, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine" (Matt 26:29). If transubstantiation of the juice into actual blood had occurred, then he would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather, "blood". If Transubstantiation had occurred, then "I will no longer drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God", leaves us with the horrific thought that he not only drank his own blood at the Last Supper, but will continue to drink it throughout eternity!
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because the vivid imagery of eating flesh is on the same level as commanding us to “hate your parents, cut off your hand and pluck out your eye”, none of which Jesus meant literally (Matt 18:8; Luke 14:26).
ReplyDelete
Replies
M.K.April 1, 2018 at 3:30 PM
continued...

*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because when Rome looks at the words, “This is my body”, they redefine the Greek word, “is” (estin), which is deceitful. They say that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but only retain the outer appearance of such things. However, the Greek language is never used in this manner. No Greek scholar will ever admit that “is” ever means the outward appearance of the subject may be defined in one way, while its true essence be defined in another way.
*** We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because the word “is” (estin) is plainly used symbolically by Jesus when he says, “This cup is the new testament in my blood”. The cup is not actually the new covenant, but a figure of speech FOR the new covenant.
Much more could be said, but this will be suffice for now.

DM: The Passover Lamb was killed in order that it might be eaten.

MK: Yes, but in the N.T., we "eat the Passover Lamb metaphorically" by BELIEVING IN CHRIST, not by consuming his flesh and blood, which is repulsive. As Augustine said, "He who believes, EATS...".

Essentially, we know that "eating and drinking" are synonymous with "believing in Christ" because they both produce the same result: namely, eternal life! In John 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47, we read that believing in him results in everlasting life. When compared with verses 51 and 54, we learn that eating his flesh and drinking his blood also brings eternal life.

Stated in plain language: "everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:40)
Stated in figurative language: "whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54).

What Jesus states literally in vs. 40, he states metaphorically in vs. 54. The latter is the metaphorical equivalent of referring to the former. Hence, these are merely two ways of saying the same thing, as in "Lazarus sleepeth, but I go to awake him out of sleep". The disciples said not to bother, let him enjoy his rest. But the Lord replied, "Lazarus is dead" (John 11:11).

Moreover, the Catholic view is simply out of sync with the biblical precedent of “eating God” in a metaphorical sense. "Hearken diligently to me and eat" (Isa 55:2) is just as metaphorical as when Jesus equates believing in him with eating his flesh (as shown above). The same goes for, “Oh taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8). The same goes for he being the “Fountain of Living Waters” (Jeremiah 2:13). The same goes for the invitation to, “everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters...and draw water out of the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3, 55:1; cf. Psalm 42:1, 63:1). The same goes for when Israel “drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4). God had provided water in the wilderness, splitting rocks and causing streams of water to flow out (Psalm 78:15-16). However, the rock was not literally Christ, just as the bread was not literally his body. They "drank" from their spiritual Rock BY FAITH, who was Christ supplying their need. Today, we “drink” the supply of all his promises, by faith (John 7:35-7). Today, we “taste the kindness of the Lord”, by faith (1 Peter 2:2-3). Today, we “drink the pure milk of the word”, by faith (1 Peter 2:2). Today, we all, “drink into one spirit” by embracing all of his benefits, by faith (1 Cor 12:13).
All of this vivid, metaphorical imagery results in Rome's own metaphorical curse by “eating and drinking judgment to themselves” (1 Cor 11:29) when the papacy insists on such a crudely literal approach to John 6 and the Last Supper!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Jesse AlbrechtApril 1, 2018 at 3:34 PM
Jesus could have easily said of the communion elements, "This BECOMES my flesh..this BECOMES my blood..."
ReplyDelete
Replies
M.K.April 1, 2018 at 7:33 PM
J: Jesus could have easily said of the communion elements, "This BECOMES my flesh..this BECOMES my blood..."

MK: Yes, but he didn't.
Where do you get the idea that he was under some obligation to make everything perfectly explicit down to the last dirty detail? Your complaint does not carry the weight to overpower the biblical criteria that militates strongly against the RC position, and I haven't even begun to touch on it. Whatever your denomination, I'm assuming it's somewhat sympathetic to the Pope's in that you consider there is some sort of mystical change going on in the bread and wine. I say there is NOT. The elements are set aside for a special purpose (i.e., sanctified), but they remain bread and wine from beginning to end. The mere fact that Peter did not ask any questions upon hearing this, in light of his knowing darn well that drinking literal blood was forbidden in God's law, is eloquent silent testimony that he could not have understood Christ as being anything BUT using metaphor.

Even JP II admits: "Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [eucharistic] meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not" ("Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, #2).
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownApril 2, 2018 at 7:54 AM
MK: Rome teaches that Jesus gave himself to God the Father in sacrifice at the Last Supper BEFORE he went to Calvary (as per the Council of Trent) and true Christians will have none of it regardless of the sinister explanations you use to try to explain it.

DM: It is the main element in the Father's plan of salvation.

MK: I first notice you don't try to defend the completely unheard of notion of Calvary already happening at the Last Supper. Good. It would be a waste of time.
Second, I am flabbergasted that you really think that swallowing the Eucharist is the "main element" in the plan of salvation. I would remind you that the Bible gives more explication on the meaning of woman's hats, than it does about the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:2-15). That being so, we may rightly assume that the Holy Spirit has given the topic just the right amount of space he wanted; namely, LIMITED. This glaringly absent lack of emphasis of its salvific efficacy, lends more to the metaphorical view as a simple commemoration, rather than the vital necessity Rome puts on it... "FOR" salvation.

DM: Ask yourself, "Why did St. John the Baptist call Jesus, 'the Lamb of God'?"

MK: Ask YOURSELF this: How many people in the history of the world ever gave commentary that JTB ever knew of, let alone that WE, should should understand his words in a "eucharistic manner"? If what you say is true, the catechism ought to have pressed the point of eating the Lamb of God ...FOR salvation in #608 under the subject heading of the Lamb. Instead, they simply agree with ME, that he was the lamb who SYMBOLIZES Israel's redemption at the first Passover. I suppose if you were on the committee, 608 would read differently.

DM: For those of you who don't know, it is because, in the Old Testament, the lamb of God was sacrificed and eaten in the ritual which the Jews called the Passover.

MK: Yeah, so what? Protestants believe likewise.

DM: 1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast

MK: Yeah, so what? You are trying to read something into the Text that is not there. This, as you know, is called, eisegesis.

continued...
ReplyDelete
Replies
M.K.April 2, 2018 at 8:03 AM
DM: The feast in reference, is the Mass, the Christian Passover.

MK: Sadly, it is the die-hard Catholic's job to foist upon the Text things that are no where indicated. If Catholicism were true, you must believe that God speaks with cotton balls in his mouth and no one may understand him without Catholic personnel telling us what he REALLY meant.
Previously I said, "What you omit to say is that the SIN OFFERING was never to be eaten (Leviticus 4)".

DM: Perhaps you don't realize that we are a nation of Priests. The Priests of the OT were allowed to eat the sin offering.

MK: Perhaps YOU don't realize that if Catholicism wishes to take the liberty of making a one-to-one comparison with eating the O.T. passover lamb and eating the N.T. Passover Lamb, then your opponents should be allowed equal liberty to make a one-to-one comparison with the congregation of the old and the congregation of the new, being commanded NOT to eat the sin offering.

MK: Was not Jesus a sin-offering, De Maria?

DM: Yes. The Eucharist is the one remaining sin offering.....Hebrews 10:18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin"

MK: I fear that you have just contradicted yourself. Yes, Heb 10 is clear as the light of day. Your trick is to sneak in that Christ is now the "remaining" sin offering, but that is once again, adding to the Text, for which you should be ashamed.

Previously, I said, "That being so, we have two choices: Either eat Jesus the passover lamb (literally), or eat Jesus the sin offering (metaphorically)"

DM: We have a third. Eat Jesus, the sin offering, Sacramentally. What's the difference? Well...

MK: Before you answer, I should put you on notice that any explanation you furnish cannot stand. Why? Because there simply is NO SUCH THING as a "sacramental existence". FYI, there are only TWO kinds of existence; namely, physical and spiritual. This mumbo jumbo "sacramental" (mysterious) existence has been pulled like a rabbit out of a hat to justify eating Jesus in some eerie, metaphysical form wherein he shrinks himself down into the size of a Ritz cracker. Frankly, it is pure science fiction without a shred of biblical support.

DM: if we were eating Jesus, literally, we would have to somehow find His human body and tear it limb from limb and eat Him cannibalistically, in a bloody fashion.

MK: If words have any meaning, Catholics simply cannot escape the charge of cannibalism whether you like it or not. It does not matter one WHIT that you say you are eating his physical body parts hidden in bread and wine "sacramentally". You believe that you eat the "body, blood, soul and divinity", or as they say, "the WHOLE Christ", and therefore, THAT is, by definition, cannibalism....and the only time Scripture mentions cannibalism is in the context of extreme famine or as a result of severe judgment (Deuteronomy 28:53).

Furthermore, I have asked this question to at least 100 nice RC's such as yourself, but so far, have only received a blank stare. How, may I ask, if Jesus wanted them to eat his flesh in chapter 6, could his audience comply with his command? Does the Lord give commands that are impossible to obey? Well then...since the Eucharist would not be instituted until a year later, and let's say, someone wanted to "walk down the aisle" and accept his instructions to eat him (present tense; "UNLESS you eat"...i.e., "NOW")..... how could such a person be able to do this from a Catholic perspective?
The Protestant position is as simple as the light of day. As Augustine said, "He who BELIEVES, eats..."
ReplyDelete
Replies
M.K.April 2, 2018 at 8:13 AM
DM: If we were to eat Him metaphorically, we would pretend that the bread was His body and make believe that He was truly present in the elements.

MK: That is COMPLETELY untrue and is a gross misrepresentation of Protestant belief and practice. None of us "pretend" that the bread is his body. On the other hand, the Council of Trent did indeed PRETEND that the bread was "TRULY" his body by falsely claiming that Christ "SAID" that the bread was... "truly"... his body at the Last Supper (CCC 1376). However, no Bible on Earth has Jesus saying any such thing! Hence, the Council of Trent was not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they claimed at both the beginning and end of their decree on the Eucharist, which means they in particular, and the RCC in general were certainly NOT given the gift of infallibility from Jesus Christ, and according to God, they are a non-prophet organization which ought to be condemned
(Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40; Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21).

DM: We eat Him in an unbloody manner, believing that He is the Bread of Heaven (John 6:33).

MK: First of all, to suppose Jesus wants us to drink unbloody blood, is just as oxymoronic as asking us to ride a horseless horse! It is a miserable, convoluted theology, to be sure.
Second, perhaps you are unaware that according to big time RC apologist, Robert Sungenis, in his, “Not By Bread Alone” (with the Nihil Obstat), we are told that only ***UP TO*** vs. 47,
“the teaching and the meaning, at least up to this point, is purely symbolic” (Sungenis, p. 172).
You say vs. 33 is to be taken literally. Sungenis and his entourage say different. Oh my, two Catholics who disagree! What now? You know DM, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's all the disagreements and hissy fits that go on in Catholicism. I'm so upset at the disunity I see amongst your members that I could just spit bullets. Grrrr.
Now, unbeknownst to your very self, you at least are being consistent by taking Jesus literally in vs. 35 and vs. 48 where he says the same thing. Mr. Sungenis and his fan club, as well as the bozos' who slapped that book with the "Nilly Willy" stamp of approval, are NOT consistent. What I mean is this: We of course agree 100% with R.S. that Jesus identifying himself as the bread of life is to be taken metaphorically. But Sungenis argues that "bread" is only ...(get this!)..."TEMPORARILY METAPHORICAL" in the midst of vs. 35, and expects us to believe that Jesus changes gears and now wants his audience (let alone US) to believe he bids the Jews to actually EAT him (NBFA, p. 174).
But if this be so, we would be forced to conclude that Jesus later flip-flops…yet again (!) and reverts back to symbolism later in chapter 7 when calling out, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink”. But vs. 39 flatly states he was speaking symbolically which no Catholic can deny. And we say that 7:39 is another key point that interprets chapter 6.
Thus, true Christians believe Jesus was consistent and used bread figuratively both before and AFTER vs. 47, vindicating the Protestant position, common sense, and of course, Holy Writ.
Roman officials want you to believe that he used the bread FIGURATIVELY in 35, then switched and used it LITERALLY in 48, then backtracked to using symbols when he told them to come to him and drink later on in 7:39. Yikes!
All of this is a bunch of convoluted wish-mash, all in a delirious attempt to think we are to “EAT” the creator of the universe. It is disgusting, and you are refuted.

DM: [We believe] that the Bread which He has given is His Flesh for the life of the world(John 6:51).

MK: NO! 6:51 is simply referring to the flesh he would give ON THE CROSS, and NOT any sort of phony baloney sacrifice going on in the Eucharist.

ReplyDelete
Replies
M.K.April 2, 2018 at 8:14 AM
M.K. We choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because the prohibition against drinking blood has never been abolished and is repulsive to all human beings.

DM: There are no more dietary restrictions (Mark 7:19). Jesus said so.

MK: To begin with, I find it amusing that if that's what Jesus meant in 7:19, why is Catholicism so famous for making dietary restrictions as part of their pious practices??? It's obvious to me that people like you will avoid 7:19 when it suits you, and summon it into service when it comes to Transubstantiation.
Anyway, let the reader do further research to discover that MORE than a few would disagree with the opinion that Jesus lifted the restriction on drinking blood For example, Peter had not eaten unclean meat years after Christ’s death, so it’s obvious that if the disciples still observed the meat restrictions, they were also observing the blood restrictions (Acts 10:14). I wonder why?
The fact remains humans have a natural revulsion to eating human flesh and drinking blood and so it cannot be that the Creator of the universe wishes us to simply ignore this in-born tendency in favor of Transubstantiation.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 2, 2018 at 9:53 PM
MK: I first notice you don't try to defend the completely unheard of notion of Calvary already happening at the Last Supper. Good. It would be a waste of time.

DM: On the contrary, the Sacrifice which culminated at Calvary, was first offered in the Upper Room, at the Last Supper. Jesus, the author of Creation, is not stymied by space and time.

MK: Second, I am flabbergasted that you really think that swallowing the Eucharist is the "main element" in the plan of salvation. I would remind you that the Bible gives more explication on the meaning of woman's hats, than it does about the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:2-15). ....

DM: On the contrary, there are many explanations of the Eucharist throughout the New Testament and many foreshadowings of the Eucharist in the Old. The fact that you don't accept them is irrelevant to the question. The truth is true whether you believe it or not.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM
DM: Ask yourself, "Why did St. John the Baptist call Jesus, 'the Lamb of God'?"

MK: Ask YOURSELF this: How many people in the history of the world ever gave commentary that JTB ever knew of, ....

DM: Nice try to evade the question. However, I didn't ask you what St. John knew. I asked you why St. John called Jesus, the Lamb of God. The answer is obvious. God revealed to St. John that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins the way that the Paschal lamb was sacrificed for our sins. And the Paschal lamb was sacrificed and then eaten. Thus we know that this was the central theme of God's salvation plan for the world.

ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 2, 2018 at 10:05 PM
DM: For those of you who don't know, it is because, in the Old Testament, the lamb of God was sacrificed and eaten in the ritual which the Jews called the Passover.

MK: Yeah, so what? Protestants believe likewise.

DM: Protestants believe that the Jews ate the Paschal lamb. But they deny that Jesus is our Paschal Lamb:

1 Corinthians 5:7 ....For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 2, 2018 at 10:26 PM
MK: Yeah, so what? You are trying to read something into the Text that is not there. This, as you know, is called, eisegesis.... I fear that you have just contradicted yourself. Yes, Heb 10 is clear as the light of day. Your trick is to sneak in that Christ is now the "remaining" sin offering, but that is once again, adding to the Text, for which you should be ashamed.

DM: On the contrary, the problem is that you have rejected the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament. Without this hermeneutical framework, you will never have a true understanding of the Word of God.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 3, 2018 at 6:38 PM
M.K.April 3, 2018 at 10:24 AM
DM: the Sacrifice which culminated at Calvary, was first offered in the Upper Room, at the Last Supper [before he went to the cross]. Jesus, the author of Creation, is not stymied by space and time.

MK: Nonsense!....

DM: That goes to the quality of your faith or lack thereof. Catholics believe that Jesus is God and that everything is possible with God (Matt 19:26).

Whereas, if you can't understand it, you dismiss it as nonsense.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 3, 2018 at 8:00 PM
MK: The apologetic that God can do anything is perhaps THEE worst methodology you can use to substantiate your claims. ANYONE can say the very same thing to prove their heresies, and you darn well know it. Even Augustine agreed: "We ought not, just because God is Almighty, attribute to him whatever seems good to us, without the testimony of his word". Or Tertullian: "God could have made men to fly, but he did not."

DM: No doubt. Let's look at what St. Augustine said:

"We ought not, just because God is Almighty, attribute to him whatever seems good to us, without the testimony of his word"

The Catholic Church is the only one whose Teachings are completely proved in the testimony of His Word. Because, in fact, it is the Catholic Church which penned His Word in the New Testament.

Therefore, you will find all Catholic Doctrines in the New Testament.

The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).

And any Protestant Doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church also contradicts Scripture. Case in point, Sola Scriptura. 2 Thess 2:15 teaches that we are to hold the Traditions, and not Scripture alone.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 3, 2018 at 8:06 PM
DM: if you can't understand it, you dismiss it as nonsense.

MK: Only when there is certainty about his will from his WORD, then and only then is the argument from his omnipotence valid. If it cannot be said to be in accordance with that word, it is...yep, you guessed it.....NONSENSE.

DM: We have certainty of His Word and you don't because we accept the Truth that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and appointed Her to Teach His Word in all generations, making disciples of all nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Your problem is that you act as though Scripture fell out of heaven covered and bound. But it is the Catholic Church which penned the New Testament and then bound and covered it with the Old Testament in the book we know today as the Bible.

Therefore, we have certainty of His Word because we see it in the Traditions and Teachings of the Catholic Church as well as in Scripture. Whereas, you have only your opinion. And your opinion will be challenged at the next Bible study because all that Protestants do is protest about things they can't accept.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 6, 2018 at 5:38 PM
DM: the Catholic Church Teaches that the Bible is without error.

MK: Who in the world cares? The canon she possesses is rejected by every non-catholic on Earth because it contains the Apocrypha....containing too many errors to list here.

DM: On the contrary, the Deuterocanonicals contain no errors. You are simply using the Deuterocanonicals in the same way that atheists use the entire Bible, without understanding the underlying context and culture. Anytime you want to go over the purported errors you perceive in the Deuterocanonicals, I'll prove you wrong.
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 6, 2018 at 5:44 PM
MK: Your response, if brought before a judge, would be thrown out for contempt of court. And of course it will be on that final day when the Judge himself will issue you a passport to hell....

DM: Hold that thought. Remember that it is you recognize and accept that Jesus said that the Bread that He broke is His Body. But you further claim that He doesn't "truly" mean that. Simply because the word, "truly" is not there. As though you doubt God's word unless it is written precisely as you require it to be written.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 6, 2018 at 6:01 PM
Dear MK pardon this intrusion but if I may contribute my 2 cents worth regarding your use of Romans 3:23

Please read your scripture as Romans 3:23 is only part of a sentence.

If you really believe that “ALL” means “ALL” in Romans 3:23, and as scripture shows that Romans 3:23 is only part of the sentence, then you have to believe that ALL are also justified (hence saved) as stated in the rest of the sentence (Romans 3:24). Hence you have to say that you believe in universal salvation?? Do you??

If you say that ALL have sinned then ALL are also justified as the word ALL refers to both.
So how can you say that ALL means ALL only in the first part of the sentence (Romans 3:23) and not the second (Romans 3:24), which you no doubt do??

I find it hard to believe that, in order to justify your belief, you have to split a scriptural sentence in half and have the word “ALL” apply to only the first half and not the second.

If I may ask, please find others verses written by the same author, to confirm this very odd type of Greek grammatical construct in which a word used in a sentence has different meanings at first part compared to the second part of a sentence, although referring to both grammatically.

If the author of Romans 3:24 had meant that not all are justified (saved) than I am sure that the Holy Spirit would have inspired him to chose the appropriate Greek word as used in other verses which I am sure you have heard of, such as “.....many are called, but few are chosen”.

Otherwise, you would have to say that the author of Romans 3:23-24 had a very poor understanding of Greek grammatical language construct. This I would find hard to believe. So taking the (reasonable) assumption that Paul is NOT teaching universal salvation in Romans 3:23-24, you would have to say that "all" in Romans 3:23 does NOT mean "ALL" as you say as it would also have to apply to the rest of the sentence (Romans 3:24)

George Bot from Aust
ReplyDelete
Replies
De MariaApril 9, 2018 at 6:02 PM
MK: Unfortunately, the Catholic scheme of salvation leads to the false security of a balancing act between our sins and our own righteousness. "Hopefully, my good deeds will outweigh my bad ones", a direct quote from someone coming out of St.Patrick's Cathedral after being asked, "On what basis do you hope to reach heaven?" (Video on youtube: "Catholicism: Crisis of Faith"). THAT horrific answer is the typical state of mind of Catholics to this very day.

DM: The Catholic answer is the Biblical answer. Let's listen to the Apostle:

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Now, ask yourself, who judges themselves saved before time? It is the Protestants. If you ask them, "Are you saved?" They'll proudly exlaim, "Of course, I am saved by my faith alone!"

Thus declaring that God has nothing to do with their salvation. They claim to save themselves by their faith.

Ask a Catholic and he'll invariably say, "I don't know. God knows." And then he'll paraphrase the Apostle. "I've done my best. But only God knows whether I've done enough." And what does Scripture say about doing?

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

DOERS OF THE LAW ARE JUSTIFIED.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 15, 2018 at 5:55 PM
If I may comment on MK statement re April 8, 2018
MK on April 8, 2018 you commented that:
MK: WRONG. Your reading of the Text is atrocious. You avoid vs. 22 (!!!) which clearly says that the recipients of his grace will be bestowed upon only "THOSE THAT BELIEVE". Thus, the sentence may be read as, "ALL" (as in every single person on the planet including Mary) have sinned, but those who BELIEVE, will be justified by his grace."

MK, Your quote of Romans 3 verse 22 above, does NOT agree with that found in the KJV (given below).

KJV Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference

Romans 3 Verse 22 refers to the” righteousness of God” (NOT grace) which is bestowed upon ALL and upon ALL that believe.

In your quote (above) you omitted the words “upon all” which are present in the KJV. Your omission of the words “upon all” changes the meaning of the verse.
Also, contrary to your statement, in KJV Romans 3:22 there is no mention of “recipients of his grace”, nor is there any inference in verse 22 to “grace” as you state. Is that not adding to scripture.

I am under the impression that scripture tells us NOT to add or remove words from sacred scripture to justify our beliefs (if you doubt, please see KJV Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Corinthians 4:6-7; Revelation 22:18-19), yet you still seem to do so when we compare your quote of Romans 3:22 to that in the KJV.

So, MK whose version of Romans 3:22 is correct, yours or the one in KJV.
Sincerely
George Bot
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 19, 2018 at 1:01 AM
If I may still comment on MK statement re April 5, 2018 at 10:53 PM

MK on April 5, 2018 at 10:53 PM you commented that:

MK: Vatican 1 was so full of baloney they should have opened up a delicatessen. P was ONE of the pillars, and second listed after James... (much to your dismay I'm sure). We read...

"James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me" (Gal 2:9).

You used Galatians 2:9 to imply that Peter had no primacy amongst the apostles, that all the apostles were equal in status and function. Did you not?

However, in Galatians 2;9 we see that St Paul did indicated Peter’s position/primacy amongst the apostles as he did not address him by his name as he did the sons of Zebedee James and John, but indicated Peter by his title “Cephas” which in Greek means ‘head”.
MT for confirmation please Check Cephalic Etymology in your Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

The sons of Zebedee, James and John, also had their names changed to “Sons of Thunder.” (Mark 3:17) but Paul did not address them as such.

Likewise, Paul could have address/indicated “Peter” in Galatians 2:9 as just another apostle by addressing him as “Peter” which he had done so just previously in Galatians 2:7-8. However, in Galatians 2:9 Paul addressed Peter NOT by his name as he did in previous verses, but as ‘Cephas”, the “head” of the apostles and hence his function, his primacy amongst them.

MT, if you do not agree, why else would Paul suddenly shift from calling Peter as “Peter” in Galatians 2:7-8 to calling him “Cephas” in the next verse, but to designate his function as “head” amongst the apostles in Galatians 2:9.

MT also please note that in Galatians 2:9 Paul does NOT identify all the apostles. He only singles out James, Cephas, and John and calls them “PILLARS” who gave him Barnabas as a missionary companion and who dispatched them to the Gentiles.
This verse should tell you MT, that NOT ALL apostles are pillars (would you consider Judas Iscariot a “Pillar”???). Not all apostles get to decide who is dispatched with whom. And the chief/head pillar of these three pillars is Cephas, aka The Rock. How do we know this? Simple, Neither James nor John had their names changed to Cephas by Jesus.

So, contrary to what you say, scripture tells us that the Spirit did NOT choose to elucidate on the exclusivity of Peter's alleged primacy as Jesus had already done so earlier by changing Peters name to Cephas ....”. There was no need for the Spirit to repeat what Jesus had already done which you can easily read in John 1:42
If you disagree please indicate the verse were all the other apostles also had their names changed to “Cephas” and hence were also “heads” and equal in status and function.

MT, if all the apostles were of equal authority and hence “Pillars”, as you imply, then using your logic you would have to agree that Judas Iscariot, who as I remember, was also one of the original 12, would also have to be included in your category as a”Pillar and Foundation” of God’s household (Ephesians 2:20). If not why not??

Also, in passing, MT are you sure that your translation of Ephesian2:20 is correct as Calvin pointed out that it was the TEACHING of the prophets and apostles which is the foundation of God’s household (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, ch.7, sec.2, quoting Ephesians 2:20).
Hence, using your logic, you should accept what Judas Iscariot taught in “Gospel of Judas” as inspired scripture (as you say all of the apostles were “equal” and not one differed from the other in authority). Why would you discriminate against Judas who was an apostle, hence a “Pillar”?

In Christ
George Bot
ReplyDelete
Replies