Your questions are loaded with misunderstanding. 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?
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis post unfortunately reflects the error of Dispensationalism. It is erroneous both in the Biblical data and in the historical data.
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
>This post unfortunately reflects the error of Dispensationalism.
DeleteYou must be reading a different post. I'm Catholic. I don't follow protestant-isms.
Hello De Maria,
ReplyDeleteDarn 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.
I enjoy it, as long as it's cordial. Russel and I were having a grand time for a while. But, when you talk with someone for a long time, inevitably, you repeat yourself and the discussion gets stale.
DeleteOne thing I don't believe, is that all religions are the same. I believe the Catholic Church Teaches the Religion established by Jesus Christ. We can discuss various religions and their differences. But my stance is always that the Catholic Church is the infallible institution which Jesus Christ established to pass on His Saving Faith.
This gave me a big LOL. I did not know people still pretend like Christianity is true. There may be some vague deistic concept but The Christian God is demonstrably false. It is a shame you go to such great lengths to maintain your cognitive dissonance.
Delete>>>AnonymousFebruary 14, 2018 at 10:08 PM
DeleteThis gave me a big LOL.>>>
I'm glad I could make you laugh.
>>> I did not know people still pretend like Christianity is true. >>>
I did not know that people still pretend that it isn't.
>>>There may be some vague deistic concept but The Christian God is demonstrably false. >>>
On the contrary, Christ really came to earth and demonstrated that He is God and taught us how to follow Him into eternal life.
>>>It is a shame you go to such great lengths to maintain your cognitive dissonance.>>>
No, the one who should be ashamed is you. You are the one who has life and thinks and expresses himself and is not thankful to God for those gifts. That is the shame.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIf truth is relative to the individual, then can God exist and not exist at the same time, anonymous?
Delete
DeleteJ: 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.
MK: Poor baby. Can't take the heat? FYI, a troll by internet definition, is one who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory statements". By that definition, Jesus was the biggest troll of them all, for he himself said he did not come to bring peace but a sword, and made a bunch of inflammatory statements designed to provoke the very controversy you despise. Apparently you think that he walked around with a feather duster and a limp wrist. Well wake up! I would advise you to begin reading of his trolling activities in Matt 23, where he called the religious big shots...(gasp!) such "inflammatory" names no less than 16 times in that one chapter alone.
Oh, shut up, you yourself are just another troll who probably has nothing better to do with his or her life. The only one who needs to wake up here is you.
DeleteJ: Oh, shut up, you yourself are just another troll who probably has nothing better to do with his or her life.
DeleteMK: Oh MY! Your response is so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you'd pop. It's also quite hypocritical.
So let me get this straight: It's perfectly alright for our kind moderator, De Maria, to sing the praises of Catholicism, but it is NOT alright for Protestants to comment? Excuse me, but the mere existence of DM's website is an open invitation for the opposite point of view to be brought to the table, which is in fact, precisely what God is in favor of (Prob 18:17, 1 Cor 11:19), not to mention the "debate" with Eli and the prophets of Baal.
Furthermore, I haven't even BEGUN to interact with DM and ALREADY you call me a troll (!!!). DM can verify to you that it was only a few hours ago I received an invitation from him to comment on the website and do know what my response was? "oh but don't you know, I'll probably be called... a troll". WOW! If I had a third arm, I'd pat myself on the back for being your average, everyday prophet from On High!
That being so, I'm sure the Lord would agree that you deserve a dunce cap for
1) not only refusing to acknowledge that Jesus was a "troll" himself, BY DEFINITION, and in fact, bids us all to be trolls, "in season and out of season".
2) Daring to call me that name before any conversation even begins, which is inexcusable! And
3) Showing your hypocrisy by accusing me of having extra time on my hands. We are expected to believe that my interactions with Catholic personnel is a complete WASTE, but YOUR chatter with Protestants is to be awarded a bouquet of roses???
Let's face it Jess....When it comes to religion, I have as yet to read or hear a Catholic formulate even one sentence that can be said to be true. You yourself are an eloquent example of twisted logic and bogus accusations.
So go ahead and right another sentence. I guarantee it can be refuted in an instant by Scripture, common sense and reason.
Good day.
Seriously dude? You don't even make any sense!
DeleteI'm not a Catholic, dude.
DeleteMK: Poor baby. Can't take the heat? FYI, a troll by internet definition, is one who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory statements". By that definition, Jesus was the biggest troll of them all, for he himself said he did not come to bring peace but a sword, and made a bunch of inflammatory statements designed to provoke the very controversy you despise.
DeleteHi MK,
Are you seriously describing Jesus as a troll? Trolls don't have any good in mind. All they want is to provoke chaos and stir up confusion. Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Jesus is God and God is love. God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, by describing Jesus as a troll, you prove that you don't know Jesus.
Truth is absolute.
ReplyDeletePsalm 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
DM: Anti-Catholic asks:
ReplyDeleteMK: 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).
continued...
ReplyDelete*** 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!
DM: Anti-Catholic asks:
DeleteMK: I trust you reserve for yourself the logo, "Anti-Protestant"?
Good. I would hate to think you were a hypocrite.
DM: Fair enough. I have no problem with that. I am certainly against Protestantism's rejection of Christian Doctrine.
DM: The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.
DeleteMK: 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: Catholicism did not unite them. God did. It is the main element in the Father's plan of salvation. Ask yourself, "Why did St. John the Baptist call Jesus, 'the Lamb of God'?"
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. Here is what St. Paul says:
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: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast,
The feast in reference, is the Mass, the Christian Passover.
I'm backing out De Maria--I clearly was not welcome to join in. Sorry about the intrusion on an ongoing discussion.
DeleteDM: In the Old Testament, the Passover Lamb was eaten.
DeleteMK: 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).
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.
Lev 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: ....26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
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: 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, 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.
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. Not believing, but pretending.
But we eat Him in an unbloody manner, believing that He is the Bread of Heaven (John 6:33) which the Father has given us for our salvation. Believing that the Bread which He has given is His Flesh for the life of the world(John 6:51). We don't understand how this has happened. But He doesn't ask us to understand. He asks us to believe.
MK: *** 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.
DeleteDM: There are no more dietary restrictions (Mark 7:19). Jesus said so.
>>>Jesse April 1, 2018 at 8:18 PM
DeleteI'm backing out De Maria--I clearly was not welcome to join in. Sorry about the intrusion on an ongoing discussion.>>>
Thanks for participating though. I appreciate your honest and polite discussion.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Jesus could have easily said of the communion elements, "This BECOMES my flesh..this BECOMES my blood..."
ReplyDeleteJ: Jesus could have easily said of the communion elements, "This BECOMES my flesh..this BECOMES my blood..."
ReplyDeleteMK: 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).
Okay, don't be a fool. If you have ever read through my blog, then you would know without a doubt that I am no sympathizer for the bishop of Rome. Simply click on my Google Plus profile and see for yourself. I was simply making a point on interpretation, and I most certainly do not need somebody like you to teach me anything.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI too have debate De Maria before (assuming you already have).
DeleteMK: 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.
ReplyDeleteDM: 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...
DM: The feast in reference, is the Mass, the Christian Passover.
ReplyDeleteMK: 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..."
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.
ReplyDeleteMK: 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
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.
DeleteMK: Nonsense! You are so blinded by the philosophical contortions your church wants you to believe, that the only result can be a delirious deception
Catholicism wants to sell us the absurd idea that Jesus gave himself at the Last Supper before going to the cross, eh? Knowing that they don't have a SPECK of proof, they revert to obscure, metaphysical mumbo jumbo like, “all that Christ did, participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11). The idea being, is that while he's at the Last Supper, he's also at the cross and vice versa. But if we take that skewered logic further, we would have to say that every event that happened in his life is on-going and is ALSO happening NOW in the present. Jesus is still in Mary's womb, for example, due to it all happening in the "divine eternity of an eternal NOW"
Hogwash!
While it may be true that God sees everything from the PERSPECTIVE of a “divine eternity which transcends all times”, THAT is a concept that transcends our OWN minds, so it cannot be the rack we hang our theological hat on to PROVE our theology, nor would he want us to. Hence, the bombastic answer of a "divine eternity" to buttress the thought that "Jesus went to the cross before he actually WENT to the cross" should be a red flag to those who are incisive and not easily fooled.
RC dignitaries know very well that to sustain their belief that the Last Supper was the first Mass, Jesus would have to offer his sacrifice AT THAT TIME, because the Mass is, by definition, the Lamb "re-presenting" his sacrifice all over again. What to do? Answer? Have Jesus simply offer himself at the Last Supper without an iota of proof so the hoax can be perpetuated down through time and cover it up by the esoteric language of a "divine eternity going in an eternal NOW".
Baloney. It is pure science fiction, now WAKE UP!
Just because God knows the end from the beginning, does NOT mean that beginning at the Last Supper, the end of the crucifixion was “eternally NOW” at the table hiding in the Eucharist!
God deals with us in real space and time, and so we ought to judge matters according to the same measure. That said, the unbiblical notion that Jesus offered himself in sacrifice at the Last Supper BEFORE he went to the cross, breaks the real space and time barrier and is just as unsubstantiated as Transubstantiation itself.
MK: Baloney. It is pure science fiction, now WAKE UP!
DeleteJust because God knows the end from the beginning, does NOT mean that beginning at the Last Supper, the end of the crucifixion was “eternally NOW” at the table hiding in the Eucharist!
DM: On the contrary, that's even Protestant doctrine. How else was the grace of salvation applied to the righteous Jews of the Old Testament? How else was Abraham justified?
Your problem is simply a matter of not having enough faith in God. You put restrictions on His awesome power. You reject the idea that God can work through space and time. You reject the idea that God can save through matter, especially by the water of Baptism. Your lack of faith shows forth in spades.
DM: Ask yourself, "Why did St. John the Baptist call Jesus, 'the Lamb of God'?"
ReplyDeleteMK: 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteMK: 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:
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.
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
M.K.April 3, 2018 at 10:24 AM
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
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.
DeleteMK: Nonsense!....
DM: That goes to the quality of your faith or lack thereof.
MK: It most certainly does not. Mormons go around the world knocking on doors everyday saying the same thing, bidding us to believe that Jesus ordained Joseph Smith to set the world straight. Virtually anyone can retort that their opponent lacks faith by not believing the other person's proposition, but this trick does NOT prove your claims are true. It is illogical because you are FIRST just assuming your position is true. Fine. But excuse me, I too can say that YOU lack faith, and so then what? The answer is and always will be, "what saith the Scripture?"
DM: Catholics believe that everything is possible with God (Matt 19:26).
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: 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: 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.
DeleteMK: Nonsense!....
DM: That goes to the quality of your faith or lack thereof.
MK: It most certainly does not. Mormons ....
DM: This has nothing to do with Mormons. If anything, Mormons are a branch of Protestantism. The Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ established. You can't believe it because you don't have enough faith in Christ to accept that He could protect His message through 2000 years of persecution. But it is true whether you believe it or not.
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."
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
DM: The Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
DeleteMK: Oh stop it. There is not one person in the history of the world who ever used those verses to prove the Roman Catholic Church was given the gift of infallibility; not even the Pope speaking ex-cathedra has used them. Even worse for you, the RCC has left 99% of the Bible officially and NON-infallibilly defined, so all we're left with is non-infallible little you foisting upon those verses a meaning that they were never meant to carry.
The logical Christian mind knows that the early church had a tendency to fall away from everything they had been taught (Gal 1:6). This means that they were prone to heresy, and by extension, Rome’s claim that their particular church would be granted an infallible status preserved from all error is categorically false (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Thess 2:3-11; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Rev 1-3).
As you know, I sent you an essay by personal e-mail beginning with the thesis that the RCC claim to infallibility was nothing but a fairy tale. Let us go over it briefly.
The RCC claims the Council of Trent was infallible. Trent claimed they were being guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their decree on the Eucharist. Therein, they tell us that Christ "SAID" that the bread was "TRULY" his body (CCC 1376). Now no Bible on Earth records Jesus as saying any such thing, and therefore, like David, who needed only one stone to bring down Goliath, so too have I just proved to you that by using only one stone (consisting of the word "truly") I am able to bring down the Vatican Goliath and cut off its head of infallibility.
If you still have the essay, you know I anticipated each and every one of your objections and refute them accordingly, even before they come out of your mouth.
How do you respond?
DM: The Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
DeleteMK: Oh stop it. There is not one person in the history of the world who ever used those verses to prove the Roman Catholic Church was given the gift of infallibility;....Even worse for you, the RCC has left 99% of the Bible officially and NON-infallibilly defined, so all we're left with is non-infallible little you foisting upon those verses a meaning that they were never meant to carry.
DM: 1 Tim 3:15 is a classic prooftext for the infallibility of the Catholic Church. It is the verse which says:
1 Timothy 3:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Obviously, the Pillar and Ground of the truth will always uphold the truth and is thus, infallible.
Now, you say that no one has ever used this verse to prove the infallibility of the Church. But your fellow Protestants prove you wrong. Here, GotQuestions, an anti-Catholic organization, says:
>>>What does 1 Timothy 3:15 mean when it says that the church is the ...
https://www.gotquestions.org/church-pillar-foundation-truth.html
Answer: Catholic apologists are fond of citing 1 Timothy 3:15 as evidence that “ the church”—specifically, the Catholic Church—is the true, infallible earthly source of spiritual knowledge.>>>
Note the word, "infallible". And thus, non-infallible little me, just proved you wrong.
MK: not even the Pope speaking ex-cathedra has used them.
DM: No need to. Let me explain. You come to your beliefs from a standpoint of Scripture alone. But we come to our beliefs from a standpoint of Catholic Teaching. So, the Pope does not have to invoke the Bible.
And the Church Teaches that the Church wrote the New Testament. The Church also Teaches that the New Testament is the inerrant Word of God. In other words, that the New Testament contains no errors. That is a declaration of infallibility.
Are you beginning to understand?
MK: The logical Christian mind knows that the early church had a tendency to fall away from everything they had been taught (Gal 1:6). This means that they were prone to heresy, and by extension, Rome’s claim that their particular church would be granted an infallible status preserved from all error is categorically false (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Thess 2:3-11; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Rev 1-3).
DeleteDM: Christian mind has faith in God. The Protestant mind is the one that twists Scripture to their own destruction. Now, if you consider those verses that you just referenced, consider who wrote those Scriptures and who was inspiring them to do so? It is the Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
MK: As you know, I sent you an essay by personal e-mail beginning with the thesis that the RCC claim to infallibility was nothing but a fairy tale.
DM: If you're the person who called himself EucharistAngel, yes.
MK: Let us go over it briefly.
The RCC claims the Council of Trent was infallible.
DM: Correct.
MK: Trent claimed they were being guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their decree on the Eucharist. Therein, they tell us that Christ "SAID" that the bread was "TRULY" his body (CCC 1376). Now no Bible on Earth records Jesus as saying any such thing,....
DM: Again, this goes to your lack of faith. In Scripture, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Here's the entire quote:
Matthew 26:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Only a cynical anti-Christian would interpret that in a manner that would deny the veracity of Christ's words. The Bread which Jesus blessed and broke is the same Bread that He instructed them to eat and the same Bread that He called His Body.
So, you simply disbelieve and reject Christ's words and are telling us to follow your example.
DM: and therefore, like David, ....
On the contrary, you're nothing like David. You are bringing a false gospel and your words are anathema (Gal 1:8).
MK: How do you respond?
DM: Sorry, Charlie. I follow Christ through the Church which He established and which He instructed to Teach all that He commanded.
DM: 1 Tim 3:15 is a classic prooftext for the infallibility of the Catholic Church. It is the verse which says:
Delete"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Obviously, the Pillar and Ground of the truth will always uphold the truth and is thus, infallible.
MK: NO, not "obviously". The things you anachronistically read back into the Text is disgraceful beyond belief. To you, God simply never comes right out and says what he means, but has to speak with marbles in his mouth so people like you can tell us what he REALLY meant. Now get it straight: "Upholding the truth" does not in the LEAST require the church be infallible any more than a parent does not need to be infallible to raise a decent child. God has dealt with and only WILL ever deal with, very FALLIBLE human beings, not the least of which are Catholics, who I just read the other day has so far spent 3 ***BILLION*** in payouts to victims of clergy abuse, to the extent that now every RC website has a "safe environment" link you can hit for help as an indicator that this problem is not going away any time soon.
DM: you say that no one has ever used this verse to prove the infallibility of the Church. But your fellow Protestants prove you wrong. Here, GotQuestions, an anti-Catholic organization, says:
https://www.gotquestions.org/church-pillar-foundation-truth.html
Note the word, "infallible". And thus, non-infallible little me, just proved you wrong.
MK: First of all, the article was excellent and refutes your contentions quite nicely. Second, while it may be true that some Catholics here and there may summon into service 1 Tim 3 to prove infallibility, it is a modern novelty in which Catholics scrap the bottom of the barrel to find anything that might even HINT at such a thing to sneak in the infallibility of the magisterium. To be EVER so accurate, I SHOULD have said that no one in the history of the world prior to 1870 ever equated 1 Tim 3 with infallibility. As you know, that is when the doctrine was first foisted upon the world. It is significant in proving my point that NOT EVEN THERE do they use 1 Tim 3 to prove it. Thus your contention that 1 Tim 3 is the "classic" example of evidence, is grossly a-historical and out of order to say the least.
Furthermore, I suggest you get a cold wash-cloth to lay down on the couch with in prep for what I am about to tell you. Vatican 1, which claims to be an infallible council, called Peter, "the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church" (Chapter 2, "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs").
But oh my! Does not Scripture say, as you just told me above, that the CHURCH is the pillar and ground? Looks like even Vatican 1, let alone the Council of Trent, wasn't infallible after all, unless you want to tell me the Holy Spirit was asleep at the switches when they told them to say that.
MK: Previously, I said...
Delete"not even the Pope speaking ex-cathedra has used [1 Tim 3]".
DM: No need to. Let me explain. You come to your beliefs from a standpoint of Scripture alone. But we come to our beliefs from a standpoint of Catholic Teaching.
MK: Yes, you come to your beliefs from the standpoint of INFALLIBILITY--- which is obnoxious. Rome presents nothing but a self-serving contrast by setting itself up as the point of reference and standard of comparison with all those--- "schismatics", They have taken the audacious liberty of claiming infallibility and have thus, rigged the outcome in advance in their favor! A dastardly trick indeed, but those with a thinking brain are not fooled by it.
DM: So, the Pope does not have to invoke the Bible.
MK: Methinks Jesus Christ would only laugh at such a statement. You expect us to believe that he would say, "I have appointed Popes to lead the church who do not have to take into consideration my sacred word".
Try that out on him on Judgment Day and see how far it getsya.
DM: the Church wrote the New Testament. The Church also Teaches that the New Testament is the inerrant Word of God. In other words, that the New Testament contains no errors. That is a declaration of infallibility.
DeleteMK: Once again, you argue in a circle by contending, "The church says the Scriptures are infallible and that proves the church is infallible". You would be kicked out of class if you were to present that little trick in Logic 101.
I have already provided you with the verses that show the early church had a tendency to fall away from everything they had been taught (Gal 1:6). This means that they were prone to heresy, and by extension, Rome’s claim that their particular church would be granted an infallible status preserved from all error is categorically false (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Thess 2:3-11; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Rev 1-3).
DM: if you consider those verses that you just referenced, consider who wrote those Scriptures and who was inspiring them to do so? It is the Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
MK: MORE ARGUING IN A CIRCLE! I read you as, "The Holy Spirit inspired the RCC to write the new testament, and even though it shows the early church was not infallible, we are still infallible anyway".
Yikes! Kindly pass the smelling salts, I think I'm gonna faint.
So get a clue: my objection to the non-infallibility of the early church is crystal clear as proven by the Text and cannot be refuted. You wish to whitewash it by grossly assuming that Roman Catholics wrote the Bible, which first of all is not even true since the book of ROMANS, of all books, is silent on the matter--- and second, even if God did ordain Romanism to "write the Bible", you still could not get away from the fact that the early church was nevertheless prone to error, proving my previous statement that God has used only very FALLIBLE people to orchestrate the divine symphony of world events.
MK: As you know, I sent you an essay by personal e-mail beginning with the thesis that the RCC claim to infallibility was nothing but a fairy tale. Let us go over it briefly.
DeleteThe RCC claims the Council of Trent was infallible.
DM: Correct.
MK: Trent claimed they were being guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their decree on the Eucharist. Therein, they tell us that Christ "SAID" that the bread was "TRULY" his body (CCC 1376). Now no Bible on Earth records Jesus as saying any such thing,....
DM: Again, this goes to your lack of faith.
MK: Still yet MORE arguing in a circle! I supposedly lack faith in the infallible RCC when she claims to be infallible, so I am wrong???
This does not have anything whatsoever to do with my alleged lack of faith.
I'm being very specific here. The RCC is claiming to speak for Jesus Christ. But the record shows that J.C. did NOT say the bread was truly his body. There is NO way for you to escape this except to flap your fins like a fish out of water before you suffocate.
DM: In Scripture, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Here's the entire quote:
MK: WE DO NOT NEED THE ENTIRE QUOTE my dear DM. We all know what it says and what it does NOT say. And Jesus did NOT say the bread was truly his body, period, end of story.
DM: Only a cynical anti-Christian would interpret that in a manner that would deny the veracity of Christ's words.
MK: Oh stop it. The veracity of Christ's words did not include what Trent claimed he said and you know it. By making that statement, you show a thick cloud of cobwebs forming in the windmills of your mind. The fact is, only an anti-Christian, non-prophet organization such as the Council of TRENT, bent on refuting the Reformers, could ever make such a pronouncement except by purposely lying to make their point.
True Christians (as opposed to Catholics) know the sanctity and exactitude of God’s word is endorsed down to the last “jot and tittle” (Matt 5:18). That being so, the Holy Spirit would never inspire Trent to misquote Jesus, even just a “tittle”. Ergo, the gift of infallibility was no more given to the church of Rome than there is a man in the moon, and that being so, the entire Roman Catholic faith is to be rejected per Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40. It is promised in those passages that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be swiftly cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21).
DM: Obviously, the Pillar and Ground of the truth will always uphold the truth and is thus, infallible.
DeleteMK: NO, not "obviously".
DM: Yes, obviously.
MK: The things you anachronistically read back into the Text is disgraceful beyond belief.
DM: LOL! This is a great joke, coming from you. First of all, it is the Catholic Church which reads the verse according to the culture and time in which it was written. It is you who anachronistically read into it the nonsense which was invented by the Protestants in order to cast off Christ's authority.
MK: To you, God simply never comes right out and says what he means,
DM: On the contrary, it is you who denies the plainly written word.
MK: but has to speak with marbles in his mouth so people like you can tell us what he REALLY meant. Now get it straight: "Upholding the truth" does not in the LEAST require the church be infallible any more than a parent does not need to be infallible to raise a decent child.
DM: You're comparing the Word of God to the ability of a common person. When God speaks, it is done. God speaks through the Scriptures. And God said that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. Thus, the Church is the Pillar that Jesus established in order to uphold and pass on the Truth to every generation. Only a cynic who wants to reject God's word would contrive any other explanation and force it upon the text.
MK: First of all, the article was excellent and refutes your contentions quite nicely.
DeleteDM: Neh.
MK: Second, while it may be true that some Catholics here and there ...
DM: Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. Since you claimed that no one, ever, in history, had ever used it for that purpose. It is, as I said, a classic prooftext which is taught in Catholic Apologetics classes to refute arguments against the infallibility of the Church.
MK: Furthermore, I suggest you get a cold wash-cloth to lay down on the couch with in prep for what I am about to tell you.
DeleteDM: LOL
MK: Vatican 1, which claims to be an infallible council, called Peter, "the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church" (Chapter 2, "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs").
DM: Now, go get your wet towel and lay down on the couch and explain how that helps you? I'll give you a little help. You are reading into these sentences that which you want to get out of them. But you're wrong.
Let's compare both statements.
Scripture says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH.
In other words, the Church upholds the Truth and is therefore, infallible. The Church is the subject of that sentence and the sentence describes what the Church does.
Vatican I says that St. Peter is the Pillar of FAITH.
In other words, St. Peter upholds the faith of the members of the Church. This is actually first taught by Jesus Christ:
Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
St. Peter is the subject of that sentence and it is a reference to a charism with Jesus endowed Peter.
Vatican I also says that St. Peter is the Foundation of the CHURCH.
Again, this recognizes what Jesus said to St. Peter:
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
St. Peter is again the subject of that sentence and that sentence is a reiteration of the fact that Jesus built His Church upon St. Peter's faith.
That should suffice to show that you are wrong.
MK: But oh my! Does not Scripture say, as you just told me above, that the CHURCH is the pillar and ground?
DeleteDM: Of the Truth. Yes.
MK: Looks like even Vatican 1, let alone the Council of Trent, wasn't infallible after all, unless you want to tell me the Holy Spirit was asleep at the switches when they told them to say that.
DM: The only one who was asleep, is you. Apparently, you were asleep in English class when your teacher explained sentence structure and subjects and verbs and their relationships.
MK: Yes, you come to your beliefs from the standpoint of INFALLIBILITY---
DeleteDM: Correct.
MK: which is obnoxious.
DM: Only to those who don't believe in Jesus Christ.
MK: Rome presents nothing but a self-serving contrast by setting itself up as the point of reference and standard of comparison with all those--- "schismatics", They have taken the audacious liberty of claiming infallibility and have thus, rigged the outcome in advance in their favor! A dastardly trick indeed, but those with a thinking brain are not fooled by it.
DM: All the Church did was to believe in Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who sent the Church out to Teach all that He commanded. The Church accepted this task and has been Teaching the Word of God all the while. This is the reason that the Catholic Church Teaches that the Bible is without error. Because the Bible is part of the Church's infallible Teaching.
MK: ....The RCC is claiming to speak for Jesus Christ. But the record shows that J.C. did NOT say the bread was truly his body....
DeleteDM: Yes, MK, Jesus did say that the bread was truly His Body. He didn't have to use YOUR words to express the same meaning. When Jesus took bread and broke it and said to the Apostles, "Take and eat, this is my Body." He meant the bread which He took and broke was TRULY His Body. You simply refuse to believe it and therefore show your lack of faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word.
DM: Obviously, the Pillar and Ground of the truth will always uphold the truth and is thus, infallible.
DeleteMK: NO, not "obviously".
DM: Yes, obviously.
MK: NO WAY. The church which upholds the truth does not have to be infallible herself to do so! It is a purely ridiculous assumption built on a false premise.
The things you anachronistically read back into the Text is disgraceful beyond belief.
DM: LOL! This is a great joke, coming from you. First of all, it is the Catholic Church which reads the verse according to the culture and time in which it was written.
MK: Yeah, tell me about it. Tell me, for example, all about the "culture" of a "married virgin" that ever existed which the RCC reads into the Text to conclude that this was the case with Mary. I won't hold my breath to get an answer to that one, lest I suffocate, since no such culture ever existed.
You are refuted.
DM: On the contrary, it is you who denies the plainly written word.
MK: Back to Maria Marvelous again. The plainly written record has her rejoicing in God her Savior, meaning that she was a sinner in need of a Savior. Moreover, the Text plainly tells us that ALL have sinned, and as if to anticipate the RC objection, pounds down the gavel with there are none which are inherently righteous, "NO, NOT ONE".
Much more could be said, but suffice to say that the RCC effectively spits in God's face at the "plainly written word".
You are refuted.
DM: God speaks through the Scriptures. And God said that the Church is the Pillar of Truth.
MK: I never denied that. I do deny that it is the RCC in particular that is spoken of.
DM: Only a cynic who wants to reject God's word would contrive any other explanation and force it upon the text.
MK: Nutz to that comment. The RCC is infamous for foisting unwarranted assumptions on the Text, which is why millions down through time have kissed the Pope good-by.
DM: Vatican I says that St. Peter is the Pillar of FAITH.
DeleteMK: 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).
DM: In other words, St. Peter upholds the faith of the members of the Church.
MK: According to the Text, they all did!
You are refuted.
DM: This is actually first taught by Jesus Christ:
Luke 22:31... And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
St. Peter is the subject of that sentence and it is a reference to a charism that Jesus endowed Peter with.
MK: There is absolutely NOTHING in that verse that indicates Peter was being "endowed" with special privileges. Your unwarranted assumptions just never let up! I could point out no less than 25 places where PAUL exerts his authority in places you could wish were said of Peter. I'm afraid to mention them tho, concerned that you might fall over backwards.
DM: Vatican I also says that St. Peter is the Foundation of the church.
MK: Who cares? THEY WERE WRONG. The church (i.e., the body of believers, not the infrastructure at Rome) has already gone on record as being classified as the foundation in that infamous verse. Adding to that, the Spirit chose to extend the definition of "God’s household, [which is] built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS" (Eph 2:20).
Clearly, the Spirit did NOT choose to elucidate on the exclusivity of Peter's alleged primacy because...(helloooo!), THERE WASN'T ANY.
Yes, P was prominent, but he was NOT papal in any sense of the word.
You are refuted.
DM: Matthew 16:18... And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus built His Church upon St. Peter's faith.
MK: All Christians believe the church was built on P's faith. The RCC can't escape it and even says so in the catechism (#424, 442). However, what makes the RCC a synagogue of Satan is that while they will not deny you the luxury of believing the church was built on P's faith as a SECONDARY meaning to M-16, the PRIMARY meaning must be held FOR SALVATION. And that primary meaning is that the church was built on Peter, the MAN (CCC 552, 881). Consequently, Vatican 1 says that "the first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith", which means you must believe the RCC was built on Peter, the MAN, at the get-go, and not just his faith, secondarily. Not adhering to all her doctrines, such as petrine primacy, results in forfeiting salvation. "This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith AND SALVATION."
Think of it! Christians sent to hell for believing the church was built on Jesus Christ! Yikes! You couldn't PAY me to become Catholic.
I am convinced you will be in for a rude awakening on Judgment Day. Jesus no more founded the RCC to be his mouthpiece on Earth than I am the King of Egypt.
DM: the Catholic Church Teaches that the Bible is without error.
DeleteMK: 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.
MK: the record shows that J.C. did NOT say the bread was truly his body....
DM: Yes, MK, Jesus did say that the bread was truly His Body.
MK: May I suggest fumigation? It appears the cobwebs are forming rather quickly in the windmills of your mind.
Jesus said no such thing (!!!).
DM: When Jesus took bread and broke it and said to the Apostles, "Take and eat, this is my Body", He ***meant*** the bread which He took and broke was TRULY His Body.
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. That is, unless you wake up out of your spiritual coma before the Grim Reaper comes to call.
Now get it straight. Here, you are intimating that Trent was paraphrasing what Jesus "meant". But every journalist knows that anyone who knowingly paraphrases is obligated to reveal their intention at the get-go to prepare their audience that what follows is not word for word. Otherwise, we are to, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). Trent gave no indication whatsoever that they were trying to capture the literal meaning of “This is my body” with a paraphrase! They simply assert that Christ “truly” said the bread was actually his body, and leave it at that. But by doing so, they are guilty of adding to the Text.
“Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18).
You are refuted.
Second, Trent is perfectly free to think Transubstantiation is what Jesus meant by, “This is my body”, as we are free to think that he meant no such literal thing. However, based on the premise that, “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19), Trent is NOT free to teach that he ***SAID*** the bread was truly his body to convey that Transubstantiation is a literal fact, any more than we are free to teach that he ***SAID*** the bread was not his literal body, to convey that Transubstantiation is false. Each of our respective cases must be based hands-down on the biblical data without the need to put words in the mouth of our Savior (2 Tim 3:15-17). The biblical axiom is, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). Trent did not do this and so they are, by definition, “evil” when it comes to infallibility.
You are refuted.
Third, In John 21:22, we read of a rumor that was going around based on something Jesus ***supposedly*** said. But in the next breath, the Text reports that he did not actually say that at all. It is conclusive therefore, that I am in perfect harmony with the Spirit of Truth who is in favor of what Jesus ***actually*** said, rather than what he ***supposedly*** said. Hence, the controlling factor behind the Council of Trent was certainly not the infallible Holy Spirit, but rather, only their raw, unbridled emotions
You are refuted.
MK: NO WAY. The church which upholds the truth does not have to be infallible herself to do so! It is a purely ridiculous assumption built on a false premise.
DeleteDM: Again, that just shows your lack of faith. The Church is the instrument that Jesus Christ appointed to Teach what He commanded to the entire world (Matt 28:18-20). Therefore, the Church is infallible.
MK: Yeah, tell me about it. Tell me, for example, all about the "culture" of a "married virgin" that ever existed which the RCC reads into the Text to conclude that this was the case with Mary. I won't hold my breath to get an answer to that one, lest I suffocate, since no such culture ever existed.
DeleteDM: I don't remember us discussing a culture of married virgins before. Nor do I remember ever saying that such a culture existed. Not to you or anyone. However, the Scripture does say:
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Do you deny this?
MK: You are refuted.
DeleteDM: In order to refute me, you have to produce facts that actually overturn something that I said. You can't put words in my mouth and then overturn the words that you put in my mouth and claim that I've been refuted. That is the classic example of a straw man argument.
MK: Back to Maria Marvelous again.
DeleteDM: Even if you don't believe that Mary is ever virgin and immaculately conceived, don't you think it is sinful to speak of your Saviour's mom with words that drip with cynicism?
MK: The plainly written record has her rejoicing in God her Savior, meaning that she was a sinner in need of a Savior.
DM: No. She is a woman who was saved from sin by her omnipotent Son.
Let's take a very personal example. Say that your mom was about to step out into the street and a truck was barreling down so fast that you were certain it would hit her. What would you do? Would you let the truck hit your mom and then call a doctor? Or would you prevent your mom from being hit?
I would prevent my mom from being hit. Jesus Christ is the only man, born of a woman, who could prevent His mom from being hit by Satan's sinfulness.
MK: Moreover, the Text plainly tells us that ALL have sinned, and as if to anticipate the RC objection, pounds down the gavel with there are none which are inherently righteous, "NO, NOT ONE".
DeleteDM: On the contrary, that just proves that you read into Scripture, what you want to believe. Let's take your two examples one at a time. Does Scripture say that ALL have sinned? But does that mean that everyone on that ever existed has sinned, without any exceptions? No. Because in the next two chapters, the same author says:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
So, if some died even though they had not sinned, then not everyone has sinned.
And yes, St. Paul also says that "no, not one is righteous". But, is he then contradicting the Word of God? Because Scripture says:
Genesis 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
That's a reference to Noah.
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
That's a reference to Sts. Zechariah and Elizabeth.
MK: Much more could be said, but suffice to say that the RCC effectively spits in God's face at the "plainly written word".
You are refuted.
DM: On the contrary, I have just proven that you read into Scripture that which you want to get out of Scripture. You turn Scripture on its head and make it contradict itself. St. Peter warned about people like you (2 Pet 3:15-16).
MK: Nutz to that comment. The RCC is infamous for foisting unwarranted assumptions on the Text, which is why millions down through time have kissed the Pope good-by.
DeleteDM: The reason that so many have left the Church is because they don't want to be governed by God's Word. They want to govern themselves.
DM: God speaks through the Scriptures. And God said that the Church is the Pillar of Truth.
DeleteMK: I never denied that. I do deny that it is the RCC in particular that is spoken of.
DM: Its not about you. Its about God and His Word.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
If you trusted in the Lord, you would trust His Church because He established it and commanded it to Teach His Word.
M.K.April 5, 2018 at 10:53 PM
DeleteDM: Vatican I says that St. Peter is the Pillar of FAITH.
MK: ...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).
First, That's about the only place that James is listed before St. Peter. EVERYWHERE ELSE, St. Peter is named first. Secondly, in Acts 5, Ananias and Saphira died because they lied to St. Peter. Third, in many places in Scripture, St. Peter is the only Apostle listed by name. In those places it says, St. Peter and the rest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDM: In other words, St. Peter upholds the faith of the members of the Church.
DeleteMK: According to the Text, they all did!
You are refuted.
DM: Read this Text. Here Jesus says of St. Peter:
Luke 22:31... And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Thus, St. Peter will uphold not only the faith of the lower members but also those of the hierarchy.
MK: There is absolutely NOTHING in that verse that indicates Peter was being "endowed" with special privileges.....
DeleteDM: That's just your unsubstantiated rejection of God's Word. But we don't follow anyone willy nilly. We obey the Word of God and the Word of God says:
Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Whom do you submit to and obey in obedience to God's Word?
MK: Who cares? THEY WERE WRONG. The church (i.e., the body of believers, not the infrastructure at Rome) has already gone on record as being classified as the foundation in that infamous verse.
DeleteDM: Infamous verse? So, you reject the verses you don't like. Who made you the authority over Scripture?
MK: Adding to that, the Spirit chose to extend the definition of "God’s household, [which is] built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS" (Eph 2:20).
DM: True. But the Spirit doesn't contradict Christ. And Christ started by making St. Peter the Rock upon which He built His Church. You simply don't like the fact that He did so.
MK: ....Consequently, Vatican 1 says that "the first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith", which means you must believe the RCC was built on Peter, the MAN, at the get-go, and not just his faith, secondarily. Not adhering to all her doctrines, such as petrine primacy, results in forfeiting salvation. "This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith AND SALVATION."
DeleteThink of it! Christians sent to hell for believing the church was built on Jesus Christ! Yikes! You couldn't PAY me to become Catholic.
DM: That's too bad. Because unless you do, you will probably not be saved. See Heb 10:25-31.
But, to address your concern above. The Catholic Church does Teach that JESUS built the Church upon St. Peter. This is His own testimony. Matt 16:18-19.
Nevertheless, the Church also Teaches infallibly that Jesus Christ is the Headstone. This is confirmed in Her Scriptures:
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone
For you, it must be one or the other. But we believe them both.
MK: I am convinced you will be in for a rude awakening on Judgment Day. Jesus no more founded the RCC to be his mouthpiece on Earth than I am the King of Egypt.
DeleteDM: Unless you stop rejecting the grace that God has given you, it is you who will be in for a rude awakening on that fateful day.
MK: Now get it straight. Here, you are intimating that Trent was paraphrasing what Jesus "meant".
DeleteDM: No. I am explaining that Trent is explaining what Jesus said.
MK: But every journalist knows that anyone who knowingly paraphrases is obligated to reveal their intention at the get-go to prepare their audience that what follows is not word for word.
DM: The Catholic Church is not a journalist. She is the author of the New Testament and the appointed Teacher of God's Word.
MK: Otherwise, we are to, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37).
DM: It is you who is denying that Jesus meant what He said.
MK: Trent gave no indication whatsoever that they were trying to capture the literal meaning of “This is my body” with a paraphrase!
DM: On the contrary, you are reading the Catechism as though you are the editor. The Catechism wasn't written to satisfy your every quirk. The Catechism is written in layman's terms and is very easy to follow. Only cynics who want to find errors will attribute them to the Catechism. But, in this discussion, it is you who is denying the Word of God.
MK: They simply assert that Christ “truly” said the bread was actually his body, and leave it at that.
DM: It's in the Scripture.
MK: But by doing so, they are guilty of adding to the Text.
DM: On the contary, you are guilty of taking from the Text because you claim that Jesus did not mean what He said.
MK: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18).
You are refuted.
DM: No, MK. You have condemned yourself. Because you deny the plain spoken words of our Lord.
MK: Second, Trent is perfectly free to think Transubstantiation is what Jesus meant by, “This is my body”, as we are free to think that he meant no such literal thing.....
DeleteDM: No, you're not. Jesus Christ did not appoint you to be the authority of His Word. Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church. See Matt 28:18-20
MK: Each of our respective cases must be based hands-down on the biblical data
DeleteDM: You're wrong. The Biblical Data is a product of Catholic Teaching.
MK: without the need to put words in the mouth of our Savior (2 Tim 3:15-17).
DM: 2 Tim 3:15-17 says nothing about putting words into our Saviour's mouth. What it does say is that Scripture is not alone. But must be TAUGHT by someone in authority to reprove, correct and instruct the man of God unto all good works.
MK: The biblical axiom is, “Let your yes be yes ....
DM: Wrong again. The Biblical axiom is:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Thus, we are to hold Tradition first and foremost.
And again, Scripture says:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Thus we are to listen to and obey the Rulers in the Church.
And again:
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
It is by the hearing of the Word of God not by the reading of Scripture, that we come to faith. Thus, is the reason that the Church continues to pass down the faith by Tradition.
But finally, read Heb 10:25-31. All anti-Catholic Christians, like yourself, fall under that condemnation. Because all of you refuse to join with the Church in the offering of the Body of Christ which was sacrificed for your sins and all of you reject the Blood of Christ which sanctified you.
MK: Third, In John 21:22, we read of a rumor that was going around based on something Jesus ***supposedly*** said. But in the next breath, the Text reports that he did not actually say that at all. It is conclusive therefore, that I am in perfect harmony with the Spirit of Truth who is in favor of what Jesus ***actually*** said, rather than what he ***supposedly*** said.
DeleteDM: On the contrary, you are not in harmony with God's Spirit. Here's the proof. Where does Jesus say, "I am God."? Or, where does Jesus say, "I am truly God."
I don't know about you, but I believe that Jesus is God, even though He never uttered those exact words.
Thus, there's something else to be considered here. What is that? Well, whom did Jesus appoint to Teach His Word? You or the Catholic Church.
Not you. But the Catholic Church.
You are refuted.
DM: Even if you don't believe that Mary is ever virgin and immaculately conceived, don't you think it's sinful to speak of your Saviour's mom with words that drip with cynicism?
DeleteMK: Not at all. My cynicism is directed to "another mary", just as we read of "another jesus" in 2 Cor 11:4. Protestants do not have one bad word to see about the true Mary, but they will rightly stick their noses up at the one whom the RCC claims, "brings us the gifts of eternal salvation" (CCC 969).
Previously, I said, "The plainly written record has her rejoicing in God her Savior, meaning that she was a sinner in need of a Savior".
DM: No. She is a woman who was saved from sin by her omnipotent Son.
MK: Bull. The supposition that she was saved from sin in a manner different from any other human being, goes beyond the Text and you darn well know it. When deliverance from sin is defined by the word "salvation" in the N.T., it is at all times referencing Jesus, "who will save his people FROM or AWAY from their sins ("apo ton hamartion auton"). Thus, you are out of order to use the words of the Bible (i.e., "FROM sin) which refers to the elect, and attach a wholly foreign meaning to it (i.e., implying that it also refers to a preemptive salvation for Mary in particular).
DM: Let's take a very personal example.
MK: No, let's dispense with your imagined personal example and instead consider something more weighty; namely, my favorite story of the unnamed prophet of God in 1 King 13. Basically, he was given strict instructions to do this and that and to not waver in any way. Someone comes along and says, "Hey guy, I too am a prophet, and God told me you don't have to yada yada yada". The Text then says, "But he lied to him".
Like Adam & Eve, the true prophet fell for it, and the consequences were deadly. Thus, the Protestant motif to stay as close to the word as possible is beyond dispute, favored by the Lord himself. And it is for that reason that the RC teaching...which "lies to us" like the previous mentioned bozo....asserting that Mary was granted a special provision to be saved FROM sin, is not to be tolerated.
Moreover, the Text plainly tells us that ALL have sinned, and as if to anticipate the RC objection, pounds down the gavel with there are none which are inherently righteous, "NO, NOT ONE".
DM: Does Scripture say that ALL have sinned?
MK: The reader will notice that you sound like Satan: "Yay, hath God said?"
My response is, YES HE DID. May I not assume that on Judgment Day you will be asked, "What part of "ALL" did you not understand De Maria?
DM: But does that mean that everyone [who] ever existed has sinned, without any exceptions?
DeleteMK: Yes.
DM: No. Because in the next two chapters, the same author says:
Romans 5:14... Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
MK: I am very well aware of R-5-14, but it does not help your case. The sentence plainly refers to those (namely everyone on planet Earth up until that time and unto the present day) who were not and are not, personally guilty of A & E's sin. None of us are. Yet, God, having the divine prerogative to do so, imputed the sin of Adam to all of us and as a result, must suffer the consequences of it each day, sweating to make a living, and for woman, babies would not slide out as easily as toothpaste. I'm taking a gamble that you don't believe the sin of Adam was imputed to us. Nevertheless, true Christians don't mind we are imputed with A's sin at all. God views us as being in union with Adam, the Federal head of the human race, and thus, we all must suffer the consequences of his blunder. We are happy about that because of the ramifications it teaches us. Namely, while we didn't personally have anything to do with Adam's sin, we all know we didn't have anything to do with the righteousness of Jesus Christ either, wherein he wrought out a perfect righteousness by fulfilling the law in our room and stead, and suffered the penalty we so richly deserved. This righteousness and penalty paid, is imputed to us (Rms 4:6, 11), and it is HIS righteousness which can then be presented to God on Judgment Day (Jer 23:6) if we only accept it. All this is thoroughly opposed to trusting in our own filthy rags as Catholics generally do (CCC 16, 1821, 2068) and you in particular who thinks you are saved because you've been "washed, cleansed and redeemed in the sacraments", a completely unbiblical concept that will have you being issued a passport to hell the moment after the Grim Reaper comes to call.
DM: So, if some died even though they had not sinned, then not everyone has sinned.
MK: People died from the get-go resulting from the immediate imputation of Adam's sin to their soul, as well as their own personal sins. Upon further reflection, I would say that you would have to believe that the sin of Adam was imputed immediately upon exiting the womb...because if not, kindly inform me of the reason then as to why Catholics are advised to rush their babes to the baptismal font ASAP.
DM: And yes, St. Paul also says that "no, not one is righteous". But, is he then contradicting the Word of God? Because Scripture says:
Genesis 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." That's a reference to Noah.
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
That's a reference to Sts. Zechariah and Elizabeth.
MK: There is absolutely nothing out of order to refer to the saints as righteous in a general sense. But we are ALL sinners, and you omit to say that Paul said he was the CHIEF of sinners, who wanted to be found "NOT having a righteousness of mine own" (Phil 3:9). Experience has shown that 99 out of 100 Catholics do not have the faintest idea of what Phil 3:9 means. Unbeknownst to them, we CANNOT, no matter how hard we try, present to God a perfect righteousness! But when we are "IN CHRIST", a two word term used over 25 times in the N.T., we may have no fear of standing before him on that final day.
Here's an excellent 3 minute clip showing the fate of all Catholics who adhere to CCC 16, 1821 & 2068).
https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7PK7YWNX
MK: Not at all. My cynicism is directed to "another mary", ....
DeleteDM: No, your cynicism is directed at Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
MK: just as we read of "another jesus" in 2 Cor 11:4. Protestants do not have one bad word to see about the true Mary, but they will rightly stick their noses up at the one whom the RCC claims, "brings us the gifts of eternal salvation" (CCC 969).
DM: Amen! She brought forth the Saviour.
MK: Previously, I said, "The plainly written record has her rejoicing in God her Savior, meaning that she was a sinner in need of a Savior".
DM: And thus you prove your duplicity. Because the Bible does not say that Mary sinned. Nor do the words, "rejoice in God my Saviour". That is merely you, doing your best to drag down the beautiful woman whom God says is "blessed above women".
MK: Bull. The supposition that she was saved from sin in a manner different from any other human being, goes beyond the Text and you darn well know it. ....
DeleteDM: The Text of the New Testament always supports Catholic Doctrine. Because Catholic Doctrine is the source of the Text.
MK: When deliverance from sin is defined by the word "salvation" in the N.T., it is at all times referencing Jesus, "who will save his people FROM or AWAY from their sins ("apo ton hamartion auton").
DeleteDM: You're simply reading into Scripture your false assumptions. Scripture does not say that our Lady committed any sins. You are simply making that up and adding it to Scripture.
MK: Thus, you are out of order....
DM: On the contrary, you have just finished complaining because you claim that Jesus did not use the word "truly" and thus assert that He did not mean what He said. And now you want to insert the words, "Mary is a sinner" in Scripture. And Scripture says no such thing.
You are debunked.
MK: Thus, the Protestant motif to stay as close to the word as possible is beyond dispute, favored by the Lord himself.
DeleteDM: If you want to stay as close to the word as possible, you had better stick to Catholic Teaching. Because it is the Teaching of Christ, Himself.
Let me give you an example from Scripture. The Berean episode.
Let's set the stage. First, St. Paul went to Thessalonica and reasoned with the Jews, FROM THE SCRIPTURES.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.....
So, the Jews from Thessalonica already had the Scriptures. But what did they reject, then? They rejected the Traditions of the Apostles.
5 But the Jews which believed not,
So, the Apostles moved to Berea. And the Bereans were considered noble because they believed. Did the Berean Jews not have an Old Testament? Yes, they had an Old Testament. And the New Testament did not yet exist, except in the Traditions of the Apostles. So, why are they considered more noble? BECAUSE THEY ACCEPTED THE TRADITIONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH WERE BEING TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES. Namely, by the Apostles Paul and Silas.
So, if you stay as close to the Traditions as you can, you will simultaneously understand the written Word of God.
MK: The reader will notice that you sound like Satan: "Yay, hath God said?"
DeleteDM: On the contrary, the readers will notice that you sound like Satan.
MK: I am very well aware of R-5-14, but it does not help your case. The sentence plainly refers to those (namely everyone on planet Earth up until that time and unto the present day) who were not and are not, personally guilty of A & E's sin. None of us are....
DeleteDM: It's easy to prove that wrong. A & E violated God's will. That is always sin. When we commit sin, we violate God's will. Thus, all who violate God's law, sin, and act in the similitude of A & E's sin.
Nothing difficult about that.
MK: Yet, God, having the divine prerogative to do so, imputed the sin of Adam to all of us and as a result, ....
DeleteDM: Wrong. That would make God dishonest and actually, would make Him guilty of contradicting Himself.
Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
Secondly, you don't even know the meaning of the word, "impute". It means "account" or "credit". God does not account something to someone unless it is true. Only God can read hearts. Thus, if a person has not committed a sin, God will not lie and claim that the person has committed a sin.
The term "Original Sin", does not mean an actual sin. It means that mankind has inherited the fallen nature which resulted from Adam and Eve's original sin. An analogous situation in real life, would be if a millionaire loses all his wealth and has nothing to pass on to his children. Adam and Eve lost their pristine nature and did not pass it on to their children.
MK: we all know we didn't have anything to do with the righteousness of Jesus Christ either,
DeleteDM: True.
MK: wherein he wrought out a perfect righteousness by fulfilling the law in our room and stead, and suffered the penalty we so richly deserved. This righteousness and penalty paid, is imputed to us (Rms 4:6, 11),....
DM: False.
First, unless you become righteous, Christ will not justify you.
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Read also Matt 25:31-46. It plainly explains that only those who die in a state of grace, achieved by doing good to their neighbor, only those will receive the reward of eternal life. While those who don't, will be eternally condemned.
Second, God calls us to imitate Christ and to suffer along with Him in order that we may also be saved.
1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
MK: There is absolutely nothing out of order to refer to the saints as righteous in a general sense. But we are ALL sinners, and you omit to say that Paul said he was the CHIEF of sinners,
DeleteDM: None of which has anything to do with your false claim that Scripture says that no one is righteous. Scripture highlights certain people whom God deemed to be righteous. And your admission that all the Saints are righteous in a general sense, further proves you wrong.
DM: if you can't understand it, you dismiss it as nonsense.
ReplyDeleteMK: 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.
DM: the Catholic Church Teaches that the Bible is without error.
ReplyDeleteMK: 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.
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....
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
DM: Remember that it is you who recognizes and accepts that Jesus said that the Bread that He broke is His Body.
DeleteMK: Quite true.
DM: But you further claim that He doesn't "truly" mean that. Simply because the word, "truly" is not there.
MK: That is categorically false and I will not hesitate to award you the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award for saying so.
Non-catholics believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically in J-6 and the Last Supper based on a truckload of reasons I listed on
4/1 @ 3:28-30, and not because he didn't predicate his speech with the word "truly".
As for the word "truly", I DID tell you on 4/4 @ 9:47 that no Bible on Earth records Jesus as saying that the bread was "truly" his body per CCC 1376, to which you really had no response. Hence, Jesus no more gave the Council of Trent the gift of infallibility than Donald Trump is a walking saint. Ergo, Rome has revealed itself to be a non-prophet organization, and hence, counterfeit Christianity.
Dear MK pardon this intrusion but if I may contribute my 2 cents worth regarding your use of Romans 3:23
ReplyDeletePlease 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
George Bot from Aust,
DeleteWithout a doubt, that is the best rebuttal I've ever heard for the "all have sinned argument". Thanks for your two cents!
DM: Tell me, for example, all about the "culture" of a "married virgin" that ever existed which the RCC reads into the Text to conclude that this was the case with Mary. I won't hold my breath to get an answer to that one, lest I suffocate, since no such culture ever existed.
DeleteDM: I don't remember us discussing a culture of married virgins before. Nor do I remember ever saying that such a culture existed. Not to you or anyone.
MK: You said at 4:56....
DM: "it is the Catholic Church which reads the verse according to the culture and time in which it was written.
MK: Which prompted my response that if you think the RCC should receive a bouquet of roses for reading the Bible within the culture of the times, kindly tell me when there was EVER a culture of married virgins, to which they could refer to, which would correspond to their teaching that Mary was a married virgin.
MK: You said at 4:56....
DeleteDM: "it is the Catholic Church which reads the verse according to the culture and time in which it was written.
MK: Which prompted my response that if you think the RCC should receive a bouquet of roses for reading the Bible within the culture of the times,
DM: Yes, actually. The culture of the times is ancient Judaism.
MK: kindly tell me when there was EVER a culture of married virgins,
DM: You made up that idea, therefore you need to reveal your source for that cunningly devised fable.
MK: to which they could refer to, which would correspond to their teaching that Mary was a married virgin.
DM: As I said, it is recorded in Scripture and was prophesied in the Old Testament. But, you have revealed that the Word of God means nothing to you, whether in Scripture or in Tradition. If you can't understand it, you reject it as nonsense.
Yet again, it is proven that you make things up and attribute them to me.
Anon: Dear MK, pardon this intrusion
DeleteMK: I grant you to be pardoned by virtue of the authority of my sacred word.
Anon: regarding your use of Romans 3:23...[it] is only part of a sentence.
MK: Correct.
Anon: If you really believe that “ALL” means “ALL” in Romans 3:23...
MK: Correct.
Anon: And as scripture shows that Romans 3:23 is only part of the sentence...
MK: Correct.
Anon: 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??
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."
You are refuted.
Anon: If I may ask
MK: you may.
Anon: 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.
MK: No need to. When one reads beginning at verse 21, your objection vanishes.
DM: Without a doubt, that is the best rebuttal I've ever heard for the "all have sinned argument". Thanks for your two cents!
MK: Apparently, DM was also reading R-3 with Catholic-colored glasses and hey! I just killed two birds with one stone.
This is exactly why Catholics are so deceived. Like playing telephone, they just believe what someone tells them over the phone and accept it as fact without checking it out.
It's sad, really.
MK: My cynicism is directed to "another mary", ....
DeleteDM: No, your cynicism is directed at Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
MK: Kindly do not tell me what I think DM. Since I am the sole infallible interpreter of my words, I am the one to know of which I speak. And as I told you before, just as we know that there IS such a thing as "another jesus" (2 Cor 11:4), which saves no one, so too may it be said in like manner, that there is a false mary, who certainly does NOT "continue to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation" as your wretched catechism reports. Nor was she sinless, immaculately conceived or assumed bodily into heaven. Yikes, the Pope just ordered still yet another "feast day" for her, the third one on the calendar. Honestly, the man is so full of hot air, if he were a balloon, he'd pop.
The TRUE Mary would, like John the Baptist, say, "He must increase, and I must decrease". Since the catholic "mary" is always increasing, and the mariology doctrines are required "FOR" salvation, the mary you believe in, is a fraud.
Previously, I said, "The plainly written record has her rejoicing in God her Savior, meaning that she was a sinner in need of a Savior".
DM: And thus you prove your duplicity. Because the Bible does not say that Mary sinned.
MK: OH YES IT DOES! "ALL" means "ALL" and "NO, NOT ONE" means NO, NOT ONE. I surely would hate to be in your position on Judgment Day.
DM: Nor do the words, "rejoice in God my Saviour" [mean that she was a sinner].
MK: OH YES IT DOES. Sinners need a savior, period, end of story. Unfortunately, you want to be so CERTAIN that Mary was this that and the other thing, that you have exchanged TRUTH....for CERTAINTY!
DM: That is merely you, doing your best to drag down the beautiful woman whom God says is "blessed above women".
MK: Au contrair Pierre. It is the Holy Spirit doing the best he can to be as explicit as possible for the elect's sake, and this was done by anticipating the Catholic objection before it even existed, so that when it DID rear its ugly head, we would not be fooled.
Furthermore, your horrid attempt to quote the Bible in your favor fails miserably. She was blessed AMONG women, not ABOVE women. And much to your disgust, Jesus said that of all those born of women, none were greater than the Baptist.
I trust you know the verse? ...which you would like to tear out of your Bible no doubt?
MK: I grant you to be pardoned by virtue of the authority of my sacred word.
DeleteDM: Hm? YOUR sacred word? I hope that's a joke. Because it is funny. Scripture is God's Sacred Word. And you have no authority here.
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."
DeleteYou are refuted.
DM: I don't think so. Let's look at all the verses.
Vs 23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
But to whom does this all make reference? Let's back track:
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Well, we know this does not mean that no one is righteous, since, as I have shown you before, Scripture says that Noah, Zechariah and Elizabeth, amongst others, are righteous. So, who is this verses talking about?
Let's look at the Old Testament:
Psalm 14:1 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.
So, St. Paul is talking about fools who deny the existence of God. It is they who are not righteous. All of them are corrupt.
Let's read some more:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
That pretty well describes most atheists. I've met them. And if you go to an atheist forum on the internet, you'll see what I'm talking about. They are literally, lawless people whose speech is full of cursing.
So, St. Paul isn't speaking about all people. But speaking about those who deny the existence of God and are full of cursing in their speech.
You've been debunked.
MK: 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."
DeleteDM: I don't think so.
MK: Yes so.
DM: Let's look at all the verses. Vs 23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
But to whom does this all make reference? [I will prove this means atheists]. Let's back track:
MK: Yes, let's back track. Before Paul cites the Psalmist who FIRST said, "there is none righteous", he predicates his statement by saying, “For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are ALL under sin [not just atheists!] Then he says, "As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.’” (Rom. 3:9–12).
"All are under sin" means "all are under sin", period.
The Psalmist also asked the question: “If the Lord marks iniquity, who should stand?” This query is obviously rhetorical. The only obvious answer is... no one! So stop trying to make the Bible conform to what you WANT it to say just so you can justify Mary being an exception to "ALL". IT AIN'T WORKING.
DM: Let's look at the Old Testament:
MK: I already did and we saw that the Psalmist concluded "ALL" under sin. But hark! I hear an objection...
DM: Psalm 14:1... 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.
So, St. Paul is talking about fools who deny the existence of God.
MK: While that may be true to a POINT, it most definitely is not a fully-orbed presentation for the RC position, NOR does it even come close to justifying Mary's sinlessness.
DM: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one". Well, we know this does not mean that no one is righteous, since, as I have shown you before, Scripture says that Noah, Zechariah and Elizabeth, amongst others, are righteous.
MK: You are beating a dead horse apologetic that simply cannot stand when all the facts are taken together.
DeleteZac and Liz may be said to be righteous in the same way Paul said that HE was....
"[He was] touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Phil 3-4).
Even you believe Z & L were still sinners in need of a Savior, so we have to dig a little deeper as it pertains to the word "righteous".
Having now discounted your ridiculous assertion that the "no, not one's" are exclusively atheists (which no Bible scholar on Earth would agree with BTW), we now ask: How can Paul say in Romans 3:10 that no one is righteous (meaning EVERYONE) but then in P-3 say that HE is righteous? This is why we have to go deeper and why the surface level apologetic you are offering must be abandoned.
The difference between R- 3 and P-3 is the difference between God’s perspective and man’s. In R-3 we see man from God’s perspective. No one can keep the law perfectly. In P-3, he's speaking from the perspective of a law-abiding Jew who (like Zack and Liz) was careful to keep the externalities of the law and was as righteous as any other such Jew....(i.e., "blameless" in the sight of other Jews, not blameless before God because he admits he was the chief of sinners!). Further adding insult to the injury of your apologetic is that he, "Mr. Righteous" ultimately wants to be found, "NOT having a righteousness of my own, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (P-3:7-9). That being so, Z & L would feel the same way, as do all true Christians ...but not Catholics. Effectively, Paul is sweeping under the rug all confidence in his own righteousness because he knows very well that, from God’s perspective, it is, salvifically, worthless as dung (verse 8) and filthy rags: “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).
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.
All "righteousness" (i.e., right doing) which we have done will be rewarded, yes, down to the last cup of water given in his name, but NOT with salvation. Kindly do not quote Matt 25 as Catholics are always eager to do to prove they get into heaven by righteous deeds done in the body. I already enclosed a 3 minute video on that.
So you're either going to put your confidence in your own righteousness, (which is altogether inadequate) or you're going to flee to another’s righteousness, a righteousness that is not your own inherently. The good news of the gospel is trusting in the perfect righteousness found only in Christ...and NOT by being "washed, cleansed and redeemed in the sacraments", the false gospel which you are selling, sadly, to your own destruction.
DM: Let's look at the Old Testament:
DeleteMK: I already did and we saw that the Psalmist concluded "ALL" under sin. But hark! I hear an objection...
DM: Because you recognize your atrocious reading. Let's see what it says:
Psalms 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
To whom is the reference?
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
To workers of iniquity. Those who do not believe in God.
MK: While that may be true to a POINT, it most definitely is not a fully-orbed presentation for the RC position,
DeleteDM: I only have to address the point to which you object.
MK: NOR does it even come close to justifying Mary's sinlessness.
DM: At this point, your claim that Scripture says that "All" have sinned without exception, has been demolished. It follows, then, that the Catholic Doctrine of Mary's sinlessness is not prevented by anything in Scripture.
M.K.April 9, 2018 at 3:40 PM
DeleteMK: You are beating a dead horse apologetic that simply cannot stand when all the facts are taken together.
Zac and Liz may be said to be righteous in the same way Paul said that HE was....
"[He was] touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Phil 3-4).
Even you believe Z & L were still sinners in need of a Savior, so we have to dig a little deeper as it pertains to the word "righteous".
DM: On the contrary, my point about Sts. Zechariah and Elizabeth is that they were counted amongst the righteous. A group of people whom you claim do not exist.
Second, you have also forgotten that Scripture says that a group of people also exists, who have not committed any actual sins. See Romans 5:14 again.
MK: Having now discounted your ridiculous assertion that the "no, not one's" are exclusively atheists (which no Bible scholar on Earth would agree with BTW),
DM: That's the problem with Protestants. They follow human scholars. We follow the Teachings of Jesus Christ which He reveals to us through His Church.
MK: How can Paul say in Romans 3:10 that no one is righteous (meaning EVERYONE) but then in P-3 say that HE is righteous? This is why we have to go deeper and why the surface level apologetic you are offering must be abandoned.
DeleteDM: Lol! You, like all Protestants, think that you can negotiate with absolute truth. YOU CAN'T.
The Catholic Church teaches the absolute Truth revealed by God. You can abandon your false ideas whenever you like. God willing and I will continue to believe Christ to my dying day.
MK: he difference between R- 3 and P-3 is the difference between God’s perspective and man’s. In R-3 we see man from God’s perspective. No one can keep the law perfectly. In P-3, he's speaking from the perspective of a law-abiding Jew who (like Zack and Liz) was careful to keep the externalities of the law and was as righteous as any other such Jew....(i.e., "blameless" in the sight of other Jews, not blameless before God because he admits he was the chief of sinners!).
DeleteDM: You forget that all things in Scripture, are from God's perspective. For example, it is God who declared that Abraham was righteous.
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
God declared Abraham righteous centuries before Jesus Christ died upon the Cross.
Thus, you have a problem, God has revealed that righteous men existed throughout salvation history. Yet, you declare that none are righteous.
LIsten:
Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
God forbids the killing of the innocent and righteous. Thus, righteous people have existed throughout Bible history. Or that prohibition would be nonsense.
MK: We saw that the Psalmist concluded "ALL" under sin. But hark! I hear an objection...
DeleteDM: Because you recognize your atrocious reading.
MK: I recognize my own atrocious reading?
I don't think so.
DM: Let's see what it says: Psalms 14:3... They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
To whom is the reference?
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
To workers of iniquity. Those who do not believe in God.
MK: Paul commentary in R-3-9 reveals a wider audience to be included under the banner of "sinners" (namely, EVERY PERSON THAT HAS EVER BEEN BORN). Read the sentence prior to being told that "ALL" are under sin. He says,
"Are we better than they?
Again: "Are we better than they?
Again, "Are we better than they?
Answer? "No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one".
Thus, ALL are under sin and THAT includes Mary. Which means the marian doctrines demanded "FOR" salvation are all FALSE and you have been duped by a counterfeit christianity.
Now I will not pursue this particular thread any longer but look at some of your other articles.
M.K.April 9, 2018 at 5:57 PM
DeleteMK: I recognize my own atrocious reading?
I don't think so.
DM: That's too bad, because it is atrocious.
MK: Paul commentary in R-3-9 reveals a wider audience to be included under the banner of "sinners" (namely, EVERY PERSON THAT HAS EVER BEEN BORN).
DM: You were debunked on that notion early on. If that means everyone without exception, sinned. Then the following means that everyone without exception, was justified. An equally ridiculous.
Besides, again, Rom 5:14 says that some did not sin.
MK: Read the sentence prior to being told that "ALL" are under sin. He says,
"Are we better than they?
Again: "Are we better than they?
Again, "Are we better than they?
Answer? "No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one".
DM: "All under sin" does not mean the same thing as "all have sinned". All under sin means that we are all subject to death, which is the penalty of sin. As Rom 5:14 says, "even those died who have not sinned".
MK: Thus, ALL are under sin and THAT includes Mary.
DM: If all are under sin, then that would also include Jesus.
MK: Which means the marian doctrines demanded "FOR" salvation are all FALSE and you have been duped by a counterfeit christianity.
DM: You are the one who has been duped by the novelties introduced by Protestantism. The Catholic Church Teaches that which Jesus Christ commanded.
MK: Now I will not pursue this particular thread any longer but look at some of your other articles.
DM: Be my guest. Thanks for your comments.
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.
ReplyDeleteDM: 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.
If I may comment on MK statement re April 8, 2018
ReplyDeleteMK 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
If I may still comment on MK statement re April 5, 2018 at 10:53 PM
ReplyDeleteMK 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