Hey Protestant Bros!

[CatholicAndFanatical]

bump..

[CatholicAndFanatical]

why do I write so much knowing full well no one ever response..Good Gravy!!

dats mean :(

[Laudate_Dominum]

bump..

What does bump mean? I've seen this one word posted around and I don't get it. I feel retarded. :(

[CatholicAndFanatical]

What does bump mean? I've seen this one word posted around and I don't get it. I feel retarded.

Hey no worries bro, bump is used when you wanna take a thread thats way at the bottom and put it to the top. So were 'bumping' it up to the top of the list rather than the bottom..

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hey no worries bro, bump is used when you wanna take a thread thats way at the bottom and put it to the top. So were 'bumping' it up to the top of the list rather than the bottom..

Ah.. That could come in handy, thanks!

[Truth]

These are quotes from protestant Scripture scholars regarding the meaning of 'the keys' of Peter.

There is a direct link between John 6:51 - 66 and the Last Supper. In John 6 Jesus says "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal Life" - "My Flesh is REAL FOOD, my blood is REAL DRINK"

and the Last Supper before He dies "THIS IS MY BODY, which will be given up for you" - "THIS IS MY BLOOD, of the new and everlasting covenant.."

Do get upset you don't have to agree!

Christ was speaking metaphorically as in most of his commumication in the context of the Gospels. The parabales were teaching tool that Christ used. Christ didn't not speak plainly to even the apostles until the night he was taken. "I tell you the truth", "he who has an ear let him hear", "I say unto you",are keys to the metaphoric or parabal that comes next. If not what did he mean by saying word like; the lame, living water, son of man and others. The words I have spoken to you are spiritE and they are life.

Psalms 107:9, explane it very clear what he was talking about.

He also said that only those the Father sent to him would come to him. The people that were baptized by John beleived what he (John) preached about Christ. We had both the Scripture, faith before Christ ministry. John the Baptise at some time in his live started to preach about Jesus and people were baptized in water. God didn't just start the game when Christ was with us. It was before the foundation of the World! John 6:64-67.

. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spiritE and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. . 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What are you trying to prove?

[phatcatholic]

There is a direct link between John 6:51 - 66 and the Last Supper. In John 6 Jesus says "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal Life" - "My Flesh is REAL FOOD, my blood is REAL DRINK"

and the Last Supper before He dies "THIS IS MY BODY, which will be given up for you" - "THIS IS MY BLOOD, of the new and everlasting covenant.."

Do get upset you don't have to agree!

Christ was speaking metaphorically as in most of his commumication in the context of the Gospels. The parabales were teaching tool that Christ used. Christ didn't not speak plainly to even the apostles until the night he was taken. "I tell you the truth", "he who has an ear let him hear", "I say unto you",are keys to the metaphoric or parabal that comes next. If not what did he mean by saying word like; the lame, living water, son of man and others. The words I have spoken to you are spiritE and they are life.

Psalms 107:9, explane it very clear what he was talking about.

He also said that only those the Father sent to him would come to him. The people that were baptized by John beleived what he (John) preached about Christ. We had both the Scripture, faith before Christ ministry. John the Baptise at some time in his live started to preach about Jesus and people were baptized in water. God didn't just start the game when Christ was with us. It was before the foundation of the World! John 6:64-67.

. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spiritE and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. . 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

larry,

look at what u cited for us here. w/in it is the very proof for the real presence. you say that he is speaking metaphorically here. but look, Jesus repeats himself several times here, as if to INSIST on the literal interpretation. people can't believe what he is saying. even his apostles say, "this is hard to accept." does he take them off to the side and explain to them what his "parable" means? no, he repeats it again. THIS IS MY FLESH. he allowed them to walk away, w/ the literal interpretation in their head, b/c it was the literal interpretation that he intended.

also, the crowd was obviously well versed in scripture. to speak of "eating someone" in a symbolic sense would mean to defame or insult them. this was the only symbolic interpretation at the time. do u really think that this is what Jesus intended to tell the people, do defame him?

in your insistance on rejecting the catholic claim, you come to conclusions that are illogical.

i don't have time now to provide the scripture that supports the claims i am making here. if u ask for them, they will be provided at a later time. or, if you dare, u can go take a look for yourself:

The Eucharist

look at all of those verses and THEN tell me that the Eucharist is symbolic. i anxiously await ur response to this, and four other threads that i am waiting for a response in.

Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

[CatholicAndFanatical]

its no use, he has hardened his head so much that even a simple example like this he cannot grab on to.

I'll repeat the important part of what was just said

Jesus repeats himself several times here, as if to INSIST on the literal interpretation. people can't believe what he is saying. even his apostles say, "this is hard to accept." does he take them off to the side and explain to them what his "parable" means? no, he repeats it again. THIS IS MY FLESH. he allowed them to walk away, w/ the literal interpretation in their head, b/c it was the literal interpretation that he intended.

Jesus repeats himself several times here, as if to INSIST on the literal interpretation. people can't believe what he is saying. even his apostles say, "this is hard to accept." does he take them off to the side and explain to them what his "parable" means? no, he repeats it again. THIS IS MY FLESH. he allowed them to walk away, w/ the literal interpretation in their head, b/c it was the literal interpretation that he intended.

Jesus repeats himself several times here, as if to INSIST on the literal interpretation. people can't believe what he is saying. even his apostles say, "this is hard to accept." does he take them off to the side and explain to them what his "parable" means? no, he repeats it again. THIS IS MY FLESH. he allowed them to walk away, w/ the literal interpretation in their head, b/c it was the literal interpretation that he intended.

ok, im just using this as an excuse to drive up my numbers but hey. Its pertanent

He didnt stop people from leaving by saying to them "NO NO I MEAN SYMBOLICALLY!!" -

The Jews said "How Can this man give us HIS FLESH to EAT?"

Did Jesus say "WHAT? Not My flesh, its just a symbol"...

How much clearer does it have to be for you??

[jasJis]

We know that Christ didn't set up this hiarchy of the Cc, because he gave us equal powers. The apostle shared equal power in the will of God.

....Where is common sense?

Dude,

I was going to ask the same question.

Read Paul's letter to the early Church. Not sure what verse? Ask ANY Catholic to tell you what the Readings were for Sunday, Jan. 25.

We were NOT give equal powers. It is the Will of God that we recieve different powers so that together we creat the Body.

Why do you lie about Scripture?

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Why do you lie about Scripture?

can you say wolf in sheeps clothing?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Christ was speaking metaphorically as in most of his commumication in the context of the Gospels. The parabales were teaching tool that Christ used. Christ didn't not speak plainly to even the apostles until the night he was taken.

Without getting into the exegetical arguments against this interpretation, I'd just like to mention the fact that your position disagrees utterly with historical Christianity. I know you have an anti-historical tendency so this might not matter to you, but if I was in your shoes it would bother me immensely!

The earliest Christian writings we have attest to the fact that the first Christians understood Christ's words quite literally and that this was the teaching of the Apostles. And it's amusing to note that the father of your tradition, Martin Luther, would consider you damned for your view. True, he denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but he held to consubstantiation and wrote against other heretics during the time of the protestant revolt who held to a merely symbolic understanding and said they were damned for their impiety. Just a goofy little remark I wanted to toss out there.

Peace.

[jjm]

Before we all start digging on document dumping.

We need honestly to ask. WHY?

I'm making this opening gambit simple. Popes are totally unneeded. Bishops are. Supreme leadership, more akin really to a King [Pope], Dukes [Archbishops], Barons [bishops], Knights [Priests] etc. Essentially, all have TEMPORAL power, most have privelidges akin to medevial structures.

Christ did NOT intend for a secular structure to be built upon the backs of the Roman power structure replacing government with His church sitting in an amost idential role.

Man was meant to OVERSEE, with scripture the church , there always were many. One is to lead by sticking PERFECTLY to what Jesus taught.

The papal MISTAKE [succession is invented] and the attendent power apparatus that over time grafted itself onto this body called Christianity is what lead to ALL the problems in Christ's church.

I keep coming bact to MY CENTRAL point.

If Papalism is DESIRED BY GOD, he would have protected it, guided it, and made sure it was not. The string of KIDS, CORRUPTION, TEMPORAL POWER GRABS, and WORSE, would NOT be allowed by God. The Holy Spirit to me is alive, He watches over His church. I know you don't understand the HS in the same way as I do, but this is what I have come to believe.

Popes really are NOT needed, they, in my thinking, have done MORE HARM to the body of Christ [all of US guys...all of US] than any other mistake of men.

Now...

On to the document dumping. [Argh, can you guys debate without that?]

"totally uneeded" , "he would have protected it"

Take a look at the estimated 30000 different denomenations we have today that have branched out in only the last few hundred years and consider how uneeded the structure found in the Catholic church has been. Before going any further I must discuss the latter quote. Starting by considering the end of Acts 5 where Gamiel warns the sanhedrin (especially verse 38). The church founded by Christ and persecuted by the Sanhedrin did not "break up of its own accord". It held together then as it still does now in the Holy Catholic Church. The main reason for this continued existence is the power of the Holy Spirit. Every other human institution with such a power structure eventually falls. I firmly believe that the Holy Catholic Church will endure untill Christ comes again (wich is quite amazing!)

"The string of KIDS, CORRUPTION, TEMPORAL POWER GRABS, and WORSE, would NOT be allowed by God." I don't get what "KIDS" means but I readily admit to the failings of the members of the Catholic Church. Like our protestent brothers and sisters we are human and prone to weakness. And also like them we have been given free will by God. It is our choice to follow or flee from God (because he permits it). Yes parts of the body have been infected, grown ill, or whatever over the years but by God's grace and the willingness of his people to serve and do his will, the Truth entrusted to the Church has remained intact and is still professed today.

To presume to know the will of God is folly. So is claiming to know what he will and won't let happen. Should he just make us all be good and then send us to heaven? If so, what was the point of creating the universe? Do you claim to say that your church would have done a better job? That you are less human and that none of your members would have errored or even turned away from God? Even if you would have at this point it does not matter for we have only the moment in which to follow Christ and serve him. The pope is a servant just like us. He serves the Church and the Truth. You should read some of his books and letters. Don't make the assumption that because members of the church have failed to live up to Christ's standard God is not with the church and that it has no authority.

"The papal MISTAKE [succession is invented] and the attendent power apparatus that over time grafted itself onto this body called Christianity is what lead to ALL the problems in Christ's church. " read this. if you seriously believe that a headless church with no authority would have carried the truth as well or as long then I will have to do some serious prayin' for you. It is our inherent humaness that has lead to these horrible things. The same sins that saw Christ crucified are what lead to these awful things. Not the heiarchy of the Church.

Would you try and explain how you understand the Holy Spirit (I do not doubt that you could know him)

Peace

Jim

[Anna]

Hehehe, I know what you mean. But actually, I think some of his pithy statements have been thought provoking. PM wouldn't be as interesting a place without them.

Laudate,

With all due respect, you've been posting here for only three weeks.

Trust me, this place would be interesting if there was real conversation and healthy debate rather than anti-Catholic mud slinging.

This place has been plenty interesting when thinking people get together to discuss different points of view.

That is not what is currently happening here.

It's painful to read much of the tripe being posted here these days.

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

Christ did NOT intend for a secular structure to be built upon the backs of the Roman power structure replacing government with His church sitting in an amost idential role.

Firstly, how do you know what Christ intended? You weren't there. I doubt that He has personally appeared to you and spoken to you. You don't even have any of the oral traditions which were handed down from the lips of the Apostles. So, besides your own puffed-up pride, what gives you the audacity to tell us Christ's intentions for His Church?

Secondly, the Catholic Church was not built on the backs of the Roman power structure, replacing government in an almost identical role.

God chose to send His Son to become Man in the Royal House of David...A KING! The Church is a reflection of and a creation of God Himself.

Christ built His Church upon a rock, named Peter. Yes, one man. Not all twelve. And perhaps Peter was the weakest of the twelve at that! History and Scripture would seem to agree that impeccibility is not essential for the pope, and yet, miraculously, the papacy has continued for 2000 years. The gates of hell have not prevailed. Hmmmmmm! Imagine that!