TRANSUBSTANTIATION?

Religions > Bible > TRANSUBSTANTIATION?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Streamer"
Date:	14 Dec 2004 08:51:10 PM
Object:	TRANSUBSTANTIATION?

Catholics use John 6:53-55 to support the view that the wine of the
Eucharist becomes Christ's actual blood during the mass:
-------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on
the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (John
6:53-55)
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Jesus said "eat my flesh and drink my blood," but this is not
necessarily to be taken literally. Elsewhere Jesus said, "I am the light"
(John 8:12), "I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7), "I am the way" (John
14:6), "I am the vine" (John 15:5), and so on. Are we to believe Jesus is
literally a light, gate, way, and vine? No, he is clearly speaking
spiritually, not literally. Jesus himself explains that "eat my flesh and
drink my blood" is figurative.
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 09:05:56 PM

"They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and
drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said
to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and
he who believes in me shall never thirst.'" They claim that coming to him is
bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely
means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O'Brien
explains, "The phrase 'to eat the flesh and drink the blood,' when used
figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict
upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false
accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our
Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him,
which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O'Brien, The Faith
of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show
Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9
("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that
there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the
door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a
door-we go to heaven through him-and he is also like a vine-we get our
spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism
by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John
6:55).
He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the
Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek
word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing"
or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor. "
http://www.catholic.com
Whenever there is a misunderstanding in teaching (the crowd just doesn't get
it) Jesus corrects it or explains it to His disciples (though there are
instances where He doesn't). In John 6, however, he doesn't make any
clarification though he loses disciples. He stands by what he says even
though people leave him in disgust. If they misunderstood and began to
leave because he said what He did, He would have explained to them the
parable and what He really meant.
-RS
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 09:47:01 PM

"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:cpo9mt$jdh$1@news3.bu.edu...

---------------------------------------------------------

"They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and
drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus
said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not
hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.'" They claim that
coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his
flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O'Brien
explains, "The phrase 'to eat the flesh and drink the blood,' when used
figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict
upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false
accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our
Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating
him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O'Brien, The
Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show
Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9
("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is
that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I
am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is
like a door-we go to heaven through him-and he is also like a vine-we get
our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond
symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the
Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek
word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing"
or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor. "

A person (or doctor) will be wise enough to know that; that bread & wine as
it passes in your body, still bread & wine.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Jesus said "eat my flesh and drink my blood," but this is not
necessarily to be taken literally. Elsewhere Jesus said, "I am the light"
(John 8:12), "I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7), "I am the way" (John
14:6), "I am the vine" (John 15:5), and so on. Are we to believe Jesus is
literally a light, gate, way, and vine? No, he is clearly speaking
spiritually, not literally. Jesus himself explains that "eat my flesh and
drink my blood" is figurative:
--------------------------------
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words
I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never
hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. (John 6:35)
*This last verse indicates that we "eat Jesus' flesh" by coming to him, and
"drink his blood" by believing in him.
*NEVER hunger. Take that literally.
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who
sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed
from death to life. (John 5:24)
----------------------------------
Also, the commands of Christ to "eat" his flesh and blood are in the aorist
tense, meaning a "once-for-all" action, not a repetitive action. But the
Lord's Supper is to be observed repeatedly. So these are two different
things. (We don't "once-for-all" partake of the Lord's Supper.)
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 10:01:12 PM

"Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QxOvd.1633$v76.428@fe12.lga...

A person (or doctor) will be wise enough to know that; that bread & wine
as it passes in your body, still bread & wine.

If Jesus so choses to posses a rock, that rock becomes his body. The matter
of the rock is still rock, but the essence of the rock is the body of
Christ.
The matter of the physical body doesn't determine the essence of the
physical body. We are humans not because of the shells we exist in, but
because of the soul harbored.

-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Jesus said "eat my flesh and drink my blood," but this is not
necessarily to be taken literally. Elsewhere Jesus said, "I am the light"
(John 8:12), "I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7), "I am the way"
(John
14:6), "I am the vine" (John 15:5), and so on. Are we to believe Jesus is
literally a light, gate, way, and vine? No, he is clearly speaking
spiritually, not literally. Jesus himself explains that "eat my flesh and
drink my blood" is figurative:
--------------------------------

You don't have to keep copying and pasting your original post. You can
direct me to scripture. I know it well enough to read it.

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The
words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will
never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. (John 6:35)

*This last verse indicates that we "eat Jesus' flesh" by coming to him,
and "drink his blood" by believing in him.
*NEVER hunger. Take that literally.

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one
who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has
passed from death to life. (John 5:24)
----------------------------------
Also, the commands of Christ to "eat" his flesh and blood are in the
aorist tense, meaning a "once-for-all" action, not a repetitive action.
But the Lord's Supper is to be observed repeatedly. So these are two
different things. (We don't "once-for-all" partake of the Lord's Supper.)

We don't "once-for-all" partake in the Lord's supper. It is being offered
anywhere in the world at any given moment, every time mass is held.
You are a neophyte, ignorant in analysis of scripture. Your arguments are
basic and plain. I have heard them a thousand times before. You most
likely didn't even read what I wrote in the post above (an excellent and
detailed analysis of the passage you brought forth, including references to
original language).
The greek word used in that passage is "tragon", very plainly meaning
"chewing and swallowing". It is not language of metaphore. During the
summer narratives, Jesus wasn't simply referring to symbolic coming to him
and being one with Him. "Take this and eat it, this is my body which will
be given up for you." He said "this is my body", not "this is a symbol of
my body". Jesus knew the apostles didn't understand, as they were normally
neophytes themselves as portrayed by Mark. He didn't explain metaphore as
he did elsewhere when they didn't understand. He meant what he said and it
was portrayed in all of the supper narratives as well as in John, when he
lost over half of his followers because of what he said.
We don't believe that the bread and wine become hunks of flesh and pure
blood. Instead, they become the body and blood of Christ as his spirit
becomes one with the gifts. "Send your Spirit upon these gifts that they
may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
-RS
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 10:47:13 PM

"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:cpocui$are$1@news3.bu.edu...

"Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QxOvd.1633$v76.428@fe12.lga...

A person (or doctor) will be wise enough to know that; that bread & wine
as it passes in your body, still bread & wine.

If Jesus so choses to posses a rock, that rock becomes his body. The
matter of the rock is still rock, but the essence of the rock is the body
of Christ.

The matter of the physical body doesn't determine the essence of the
physical body. We are humans not because of the shells we exist in, but
because of the soul harbored.

So you don't believe it doesn't become a REAL(Literal) FLESH of Christ?

You don't have to keep copying and pasting your original post. You can
direct me to scripture. I know it well enough to read it.

You just didn't get it do you ?
(And talking about you snipping it in the first place.)

What can you say with the above?

*This last verse indicates that we "eat Jesus' flesh" by coming to him,
and "drink his blood" by believing in him.
*NEVER hunger. Take that literally.

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one
who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has
passed from death to life. (John 5:24)
----------------------------------
Also, the commands of Christ to "eat" his flesh and blood are in the
aorist tense, meaning a "once-for-all" action, not a repetitive action.
But the Lord's Supper is to be observed repeatedly. So these are two
different things. (We don't "once-for-all" partake of the Lord's Supper.)

We don't "once-for-all" partake in the Lord's supper. It is being offered
anywhere in the world at any given moment, every time mass is held.

Exactly! Now you got it.
....

We don't believe that the bread and wine become hunks of flesh and pure
blood. Instead, they become the body and blood of Christ as his spirit
becomes one with the gifts. "Send your Spirit upon these gifts that they
may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Now you don't believe it's literal.
And read the above post.
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 04:24:37 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:01:12 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QxOvd.1633$v76.428@fe12.lga...

A person (or doctor) will be wise enough to know that; that bread & wine
as it passes in your body, still bread & wine.

If Jesus so choses to posses a rock, that rock becomes his body. The matter
of the rock is still rock, but the essence of the rock is the body of
Christ.

The matter of the physical body doesn't determine the essence of the
physical body. We are humans not because of the shells we exist in, but
because of the soul harbored.

You pick and choose which passages you will take quite literally, and
you pick and choose which passages you will not.
We are commanded to not make idols or to have them in our houses of
worship, yet you FILL your "churches" with idols.
There is NO mention of "purgatory" in the Bible, yet you believe in
THAT. There is NO mention of Mary's being a virgin until she died; the
scriptures are QUITE clear that Mary and Joseph had intercourse just
like any married couple after Jesus was born, and that they had
children after Jesus.
Yet you FLATLY REJECT that LITERAL text.
Jesus was immersed; have YOU been immersed?
Don't tell us what passages to take VERY literally when you pick and
choose.
And how many eyes and hands do you have? Jesus said if our eye
offends, pluck it out! He said likewise if our hand offends, cut it
off.
How many hands and eyes do YOU have left?
You insist that the bread and wine literally became the blood and
flesh of our Lord because your pagan religion requires "magic."
You call the Eucharist "grace" because you fail to understand the
total sufficiency of Christ's atonement.
jw

You don't have to keep copying and pasting your original post. You can
direct me to scripture. I know it well enough to read it.

We don't "once-for-all" partake in the Lord's supper. It is being offered
anywhere in the world at any given moment, every time mass is held.

You are a neophyte, ignorant in analysis of scripture. Your arguments are
basic and plain. I have heard them a thousand times before. You most
likely didn't even read what I wrote in the post above (an excellent and
detailed analysis of the passage you brought forth, including references to
original language).

The greek word used in that passage is "tragon", very plainly meaning
"chewing and swallowing". It is not language of metaphore. During the
summer narratives, Jesus wasn't simply referring to symbolic coming to him
and being one with Him. "Take this and eat it, this is my body which will
be given up for you." He said "this is my body", not "this is a symbol of
my body". Jesus knew the apostles didn't understand, as they were normally
neophytes themselves as portrayed by Mark. He didn't explain metaphore as
he did elsewhere when they didn't understand. He meant what he said and it
was portrayed in all of the supper narratives as well as in John, when he
lost over half of his followers because of what he said.

We don't believe that the bread and wine become hunks of flesh and pure
blood. Instead, they become the body and blood of Christ as his spirit
becomes one with the gifts. "Send your Spirit upon these gifts that they
may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

-RS

User: "Echo2Drs"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 12:00:42 AM

Very true, the Bible speaks to us on the level we can understand...the flesh
(animal).
That is why the Bible sometimes refer to us as sheep, goats, locust and so on.
We understand what wine, bread, blood and FLESH is.
He (Jesus) is using terminology that we can understand.
He is using the physical-material to explain the spiritual.
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 09:29:10 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:

catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 10:06:54 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Catholics use John 6:53-55 to support the view that the wine of the
Eucharist becomes Christ's actual blood during the mass:
-------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him
on
the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
(John
6:53-55)
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Jesus said "eat my flesh and drink my blood," but this is not
necessarily to be taken literally. Elsewhere Jesus said, "I am the light"
(John 8:12), "I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7), "I am the way"
(John
14:6), "I am the vine" (John 15:5), and so on. Are we to believe Jesus is
literally a light, gate, way, and vine? No, he is clearly speaking
spiritually, not literally. Jesus himself explains that "eat my flesh and
drink my blood" is figurative.

*Don't laugh! They might say that it said; "he that cometh to me".

John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

You will be amazed how human philosophy works.
Next thing you'll know, you'll be talking about different topic.
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	14 Dec 2004 10:06:27 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com>
wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that
cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church, I don't expect you to
understand. There is nothing like becoming physically one with Christ
through the Blessed Sacrament. You have to have faith in it and everytime I
go to mass I know that I am not only one with Him spiritually, but as I
partake in the sacrament, physically as well. The blessed sacrament, which
is the body and blood of Christ, makes me whole.
I only gave you arguments of scripture. There are matters of faith and
tradition as well which are beyond your comprehension.
John 6:35 :
I am the bread (matter) of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and
he that believes in me shall never thirst.
John 6:53, however, clearly states "unless you eat (literally eat) the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
him on the last day. My flesh is true food, and my blood, true drink."
See the difference? And when comparing it to the last supper narratives, we
find how Christ desires for us to eat of his flesh and drink his blood,
through the body which transforms into his flesh (containing his spirit) and
the cup of the new covenant (containing his spirit).
-RS
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 06:51:06 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

I'm outside the rcc.
But I do belong to Christ's Church.

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "SDesk"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 07:05:11 PM

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

I'm outside the rcc.
But I do belong to Christ's Church.

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter

I'm inside the RCC so I belong to Jesus' Church.
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 10:22:19 PM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:11 -0500, "SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com>
wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

I'm outside the rcc.
But I do belong to Christ's Church.

-RS

I'm inside the RCC so I belong to Jesus' Church.

Jesus who?
certainly not Jesus Christ.

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "SDesk"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 11:39:43 PM

CB wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:11 -0500, "SDesk"
<sdeskpassport@coldmail.com> wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

I'm outside the rcc.
But I do belong to Christ's Church.

-RS

I'm inside the RCC so I belong to Jesus' Church.

Jesus who?
certainly not Jesus Christ.

Jesus the Christ.
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	16 Dec 2004 08:49:24 AM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:39:43 -0500, "SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com>
wrote:

CB wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:11 -0500, "SDesk"
<sdeskpassport@coldmail.com> wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

I'm outside the rcc.
But I do belong to Christ's Church.

-RS

I'm inside the RCC so I belong to Jesus' Church.

Jesus who?
certainly not Jesus Christ.

Jesus the Christ.

Oh, I thought you were catholic.
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	16 Dec 2004 10:39:08 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6383s0pn15o2j8ufae0nl057ukft36qu0h@4ax.com...

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:39:43 -0500, "SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com>
wrote:

CB wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:11 -0500, "SDesk"
<sdeskpassport@coldmail.com> wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

I'm outside the rcc.
But I do belong to Christ's Church.

-RS

I'm inside the RCC so I belong to Jesus' Church.

Jesus who?
certainly not Jesus Christ.

Jesus the Christ.

Oh, I thought you were catholic.

Good answer. Very logical. And true. :)
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 06:51:52 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

See the difference? And when comparing it to the last supper narratives, we
find how Christ desires for us to eat of his flesh and drink his blood,
through the body which transforms into his flesh (containing his spirit) and
the cup of the new covenant (containing his spirit).

LOL!!!
You think you can put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "SDesk"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 07:06:12 PM

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

See the difference? And when comparing it to the last supper
narratives, we find how Christ desires for us to eat of his flesh
and drink his blood, through the body which transforms into his
flesh (containing his spirit) and the cup of the new covenant
(containing his spirit).

LOL!!!
You think you can put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?

-RS

You think God can become a man? His Spirit is can be all pervading if He
wants it to be.
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 10:23:22 PM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:06:12 -0500, "SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com>
wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

See the difference? And when comparing it to the last supper
narratives, we find how Christ desires for us to eat of his flesh
and drink his blood, through the body which transforms into his
flesh (containing his spirit) and the cup of the new covenant
(containing his spirit).

LOL!!!
You think you can put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?

-RS

You think God can become a man? His Spirit is can be all pervading if He
wants it to be.

Just answer the question.
Can you put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?
The lunacy of the rcc never ceases to amaze me.
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	16 Dec 2004 10:40:32 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c32s099ajqj3o04pr09f9jh22utbf9u5k@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:06:12 -0500, "SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com>
wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

See the difference? And when comparing it to the last supper
narratives, we find how Christ desires for us to eat of his flesh
and drink his blood, through the body which transforms into his
flesh (containing his spirit) and the cup of the new covenant
(containing his spirit).

LOL!!!
You think you can put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?

-RS

You think God can become a man? His Spirit is can be all pervading if He
wants it to be.

Just answer the question.
Can you put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?
The lunacy of the rcc never ceases to amaze me.

I think, he said; Jesus wants to be in a cup.
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	17 Dec 2004 04:23:35 AM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:40:32 -0500, "Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c32s099ajqj3o04pr09f9jh22utbf9u5k@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:06:12 -0500, "SDesk" <sdeskpassport@coldmail.com>
wrote:

CB wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

See the difference? And when comparing it to the last supper
narratives, we find how Christ desires for us to eat of his flesh
and drink his blood, through the body which transforms into his
flesh (containing his spirit) and the cup of the new covenant
(containing his spirit).

LOL!!!
You think you can put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?

-RS

You think God can become a man? His Spirit is can be all pervading if He
wants it to be.

Just answer the question.
Can you put the spirit of Jesus in a cup?
The lunacy of the rcc never ceases to amaze me.

I think, he said; Jesus wants to be in a cup.

The rcc certainly knows how to confuse.
Jesus said He is a vine, a gate, etc.............
He said we are branches, sheep, etc................
The rcc wants us to think that when Jesus said He is a gate, that was
symbolic.
But when it comes to the Lord's Supper, that is literal.
No wonder the rcc is a dying religion.

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	17 Dec 2004 03:38:31 PM

Actually, CB, we hold it all to be quite literal. In the physical realm he
is not the gate, but literally the only way to the Father is through him, so
he is the gate.
Just one example. A vine, a gate, a sheep, etc. do not have to be confined
by our perception of the world around us. God has no limitation in that.
If God so desires us to be sheep in His eyes, we will be sheep.
-RS
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	17 Dec 2004 11:36:07 PM

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:38:31 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

Actually, CB, we hold it all to be quite literal. In the physical realm he
is not the gate, but literally the only way to the Father is through him, so
he is the gate.

Just one example. A vine, a gate, a sheep, etc. do not have to be confined
by our perception of the world around us. God has no limitation in that.
If God so desires us to be sheep in His eyes, we will be sheep.

pass some of that stuff over here.
That must be some good stuff.

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 04:31:57 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:06:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

What "sacraments"? Where are "sacraments" found in the Bible? That is
a term with which I am totally unfamiliar. All I know is that when I
put my faith in the saving blood of Christ, I am redeemed and
heaven-bound. So what do you offer me that I don't already have?
Nothing.
I don't expect you to

understand. There is nothing like becoming physically one with Christ
through the Blessed Sacrament.

You are describing an emotional high, not reality.
PROVE that the bread and wine that you imbibe at that time are
ACTUALLY Christ's blood and flesh.
You have to have faith in it and everytime I

go to mass I know that I am not only one with Him spiritually, but as I
partake in the sacrament, physically as well. The blessed sacrament, which
is the body and blood of Christ, makes me whole.

You preach fancy and superstitition.
I preach Christ crucified as the TOTAL ransom for my sins.

I only gave you arguments of scripture. There are matters of faith and
tradition as well which are beyond your comprehension.

No, Christians understand faith and "tradition". We BELIEVE the
"traditions" of the patriarchs. We just reject the "traditions' of the
RCc that FLATLY contradict the Bible.

John 6:35 :

I am the bread (matter) of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and
he that believes in me shall never thirst.

John 6:53, however, clearly states "unless you eat (literally eat) the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
him on the last day. My flesh is true food, and my blood, true drink."

I do not see in the John 6:53 passage any word "literally" in the
passage.
Meaning you ASSUME that YOU understand what Jesus meant and that
non-Roman Catholics do not.
What if non-Roman Catholic Christians understand and YOU have been
eating miles and miles of RCC feces?

I see that you don't understand the Pesach feast narratives from the
Old Testament and how they tie in with the Pesach feast narratives
from the New Testament.
They're related.
Bottom line is, if you have once accepted the atonement of Christ, you
already have your lifetime supply of "saving grace."
The ONLY reason you keep "seeking grace" is that you don't YET
understand the sacrifice of Christ.
jw

-RS

User: "SDesk"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 06:17:33 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

In one way yes, you are right. Jesus saves us. That is the important thing.
There is a spiritual reality as we continue here on earth, though, and that
reality includes sacraments. Baptism, for instance, is a sacrament and Jesus
Himself underwent Baptism by St. John. When we are Baptized in the Holy
Spirit, that is a sacrament. 'Sacament' is the word in English used to
describe these God given holy events and states such as Baptism.
.

User: "SDesk"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 06:26:44 PM

SDesk wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nbvr0h9hc36c9rk55gt9hfitfdpf054f4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:51:10 -0500, "Streamer"
<Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote:
catholics love to quote John 6:53 but they ignore John 6:35.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

I don't know of any catholics that don't get hungry.
John 6:53 is literal according to the rcc.
Why do they not want John 6:35 to be literal.
It's in the same chapter.

As someone outside of the sacraments of the Church,

What "sacraments"? Where are "sacraments" found in the Bible? That
is a term with which I am totally unfamiliar. All I know is that
when I put my faith in the saving blood of Christ, I am redeemed
and heaven-bound. So what do you offer me that I don't already
have?

Nothing.

In one way yes, you are right. Jesus saves us. That is the important
thing.

There is a spiritual reality as we continue here on earth, though,
and that reality includes sacraments. Baptism, for instance, is a
sacrament and Jesus Himself underwent Baptism by St. John. When we
are Baptized in the Holy Spirit, that is a sacrament. 'Sacament' is
the word in English used to describe these God given holy events and
states such as Baptism.

Whoops typo
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	15 Dec 2004 01:13:38 PM

Your sola scriptura attitude is unjustified.
Scripture is very much incomplete. There are many aspects of faith which
are justified by the Church through Christ.
When I put my faith in Christ, I am redeemed. We believe the same thing.
We offer you, however, the guidance of the Church and the wisdom of the
Saints that have gone before us.
As for proof, my faith is proof enough for you. I can go into great detail
this issue AS I HAVE above. You chose to ignore justification and I will
not repeat over and over again scriptural justification of the sacraments.
As for Christ being crucified for the total ransom of your sins, we teach
the same thing.
Our similarities are more than you think.
As for the traditions that "Flatly contradict" scripture. We offer you
solid evidence that they aren't contradicted by scripture and in your blind
arrogance and pride, all you do is ignore them. How can we rationalize with
a group of people who ignore what generations of learned scholars have said
solely because they despise the institution of Christ (the Roman Catholic
Church). You pick and chose what scripture you take literally. As do we.
If something is evidently symbolic, it isn't to be taken literally.
However, if Christ so chooses Peter to build His Church on earth, I will
ever belong to that church.
As for John 6:53 I do not see any word "symbolic" in that passage either.
You assume that it is symbolic, though the translation of the term "eat" is
a literal word (as explained in my post above).
Bottom line is that I have accepted the atonement of Christ. You presume
that we (as Roman Catholics) don't trust in Him as Lord and Savior. We do,
above all things. We know that whatever we do cannot hinder our salvation,
for if we go to him in forgiveness and repentance, we will be forgiven.
The Holy Sacrament isn't about seeking grace. It is about seeking graces
(blessings). It is about restating every time we take of the Sacrament that
we love Christ and that we wait in joyful hope for His second coming, and
until that day, we promise to always be present at the Holy Sacrament to
remember his sacrifice.
The Blessed Sacrament is just as symbolic as it is literal. You can't see
that because you are trapped outside, holding to these false arguments and
blatent lies.
As I like to say, you are displaying a level of ineptitude which borders on
the imbecilic.
For those like you who argue against the validity of the Roman Catholic
Church, I want to tell you one thing:
Before you place your arguments you must truly understand what the Roman
Catholic Church is (teachings, doctrines, and creed). You, in your mindless
ideas and arguments, only see what you think the Roman Catholic Church is.
I am telling you that you are wrong.
At the center of my Roman Catholic faith is a deep, tranquil, solemn faith,
full of joy and adoration. When I pray, I pray to the Lord our God. When I
need help, I call to my brothers and sisters both around me and in heaven to
pray for me. When I confess, I do so with the guidance of a priest. When I
go to mass, I go to be with Christ. When I go to adoration, I go to ador
the Lord as present to us in the Holy Sacrament, and to offer my prayers to
Him in heaven. When I go to sleep, I meditate over the mysteries of the
most holy rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (If you have any question as
to the Catholic Church's teaching the ever-virgin doctrine, see above, there
is a thread in which I provided ample scriptural support from analysis of
language, extrapolation of ancient jewish society, heiarchy of brotherhood,
and singularity of Christ as the only son of Mary and Joseph. Ample
evidence against the virginity of Mary doesn't mean there are men who are
called his brothers (because brothers is a very ambiguous term signifying
cousins, cousins children, kinsmen, or trusted elders) because in ancient
society, there was no word for "cousin".
James is listed as one of the brothers of Christ, yet at the foot of the
cross, Mary's sister (Mary) was the mother of James. Funny how you ignore
this fact that James was actually Jesus' cousin... and then still presume
that the other three present (Jude, etc.) are biological brothers. Then
there is the fact that Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary and Joseph,
the carpenter" rather than "a son of Mary and Joseph, the carpenter".
Anyhow, see above for some more explainations on this. I've provided them
at least ten times already in responses much longer than this, yet all of
you tend to ignore these scriptural justifications because you are too
blinded by your own, in which you provide a line or two without considering
the whole literary and historical context of the passage.
I understand the sacrifice of Christ quite fully. You seem to be a bit
arrogant in judging my faith in that matter. You don't know the content of
my heart nor will you ever know.
I do know, however, that you have a living and vibrant faith. I do know
that you are using that faith to push away your brothers in Christ who are
of a different path than you. I know that you and I will meet eachother in
heaven and will be laughing over how miniscule this argument was. Instead
of pushing me away, can you simply look beyond differences? Though both of
us will be wrong in some matter of faith (as we most doubtedly are,
considering we are human) these mistakes will be forgiven. So, friend, what
will it be?
Will you look beyond differences and trust to similarities (faith in Christ
as lord and savior) or will you continue to push me away in blind arrogance
that you think your faith to be correct and mine to be wrong (though nothing
in my Roman Catholic faith has ever led me away from Christ, but only to
Him).
I hope you chose the former, friend.
-RS
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	16 Dec 2004 10:36:14 PM

"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:cpq2d9$fl0$1@news3.bu.edu...

Your sola scriptura attitude is unjustified.

Scripture is very much incomplete. There are many aspects of faith which
are justified by the Church through Christ.

Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged
sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able
to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
The Bible is living. NOT a DEAD LETTER.
It is effective, so follow it.

When I put my faith in Christ, I am redeemed. We believe the same thing.
We offer you, however, the guidance of the Church and the wisdom of the
Saints that have gone before us.

....from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of
giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture
is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for
correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to
God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
You need guidance?
--------------------
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-he will
teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. (John 14:26)

As for proof, my faith is proof enough for you. I can go into great
detail this issue AS I HAVE above. You chose to ignore justification and
I will not repeat over and over again scriptural justification of the
sacraments.

As for Christ being crucified for the total ransom of your sins, we teach
the same thing.

And doing different things.

Our similarities are more than you think.

As for the traditions that "Flatly contradict" scripture. We offer you
solid evidence that they aren't contradicted by scripture and in your
blind arrogance and pride, all you do is ignore them. How can we
rationalize with a group of people who ignore what generations of learned
scholars have said solely because they despise the institution of Christ
(the Roman Catholic Church). You pick and chose what scripture you take
literally. As do we. If something is evidently symbolic, it isn't to be
taken literally.

One will be wise enough to know which is to be taken literally.
You still have "one eye" do you?

However, if Christ so chooses Peter to build His Church on earth, I will
ever belong to that church.

Wrong. Jesus build His church. Not Peter.
"He said, I will build My Church".

As for John 6:53 I do not see any word "symbolic" in that passage either.
You assume that it is symbolic, though the translation of the term "eat"
is a literal word (as explained in my post above).

Jesus said, "I am the light" (John 8:12)
I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7)
I am the vine" (John 15:5)
No word "symbolic" either.

Bottom line is that I have accepted the atonement of Christ. You presume
that we (as Roman Catholics) don't trust in Him as Lord and Savior. We
do, above all things. We know that whatever we do cannot hinder our
salvation, for if we go to him in forgiveness and repentance, we will be
forgiven.

The Holy Sacrament isn't about seeking grace. It is about seeking graces
(blessings). It is about restating every time we take of the Sacrament
that we love Christ and that we wait in joyful hope for His second coming,
and until that day, we promise to always be present at the Holy Sacrament
to remember his sacrifice.

Restating ?

The Blessed Sacrament is just as symbolic as it is literal. You can't see
that because you are trapped outside, holding to these false arguments and
blatent lies.

As I like to say, you are displaying a level of ineptitude which borders
on the imbecilic.

The RCC teaches that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is a perpetual,
continual, repeatable sacrifice. But the book of Hebrews makes it clear that
Christ's sacrifice was "once for all" and completed when he spoke the words,
"It is finished."
When he [Jesus] had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at
the right hand of the Majesty on high... (Hebrews 1:3b)

For those like you who argue against the validity of the Roman Catholic
Church, I want to tell you one thing:

Before you place your arguments you must truly understand what the Roman
Catholic Church is (teachings, doctrines, and creed). You, in your
mindless ideas and arguments, only see what you think the Roman Catholic
Church is. I am telling you that you are wrong.

And the Bible is telling you, you are wrong, teaching your own doctrines,
and man made traditions.
....

I understand the sacrifice of Christ quite fully. You seem to be a bit
arrogant in judging my faith in that matter. You don't know the content
of my heart nor will you ever know.

If you understand, you will see the truth in the Bible.

I do know, however, that you have a living and vibrant faith. I do know
that you are using that faith to push away your brothers in Christ who are
of a different path than you. I know that you and I will meet eachother
in heaven and will be laughing over how miniscule this argument was.
Instead of pushing me away, can you simply look beyond differences?
Though both of us will be wrong in some matter of faith (as we most
doubtedly are, considering we are human) these mistakes will be forgiven.
So, friend, what will it be?

Will you look beyond differences and trust to similarities (faith in
Christ as lord and savior) or will you continue to push me away in blind
arrogance that you think your faith to be correct and mine to be wrong
(though nothing in my Roman Catholic faith has ever led me away from
Christ, but only to Him).

I can feel the cincerity in you. But the Bible is clear, and condemns those
who chooses to opose God.
God warns us about this. Why don't we just follow the Bible, and leave
behind all man made traditions and other doctrines that differ from the true
one.
You can always ask God directly and look at His words for an answer. Just
open your mind & heart and lean not to your own understanding.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	16 Dec 2004 09:04:59 PM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:13:38 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> done went
and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:

Scripture is very much incomplete. There are many aspects of faith which
are justified by the Church through Christ.

Now HERE is a real bone of contention amoing many Christians.
Your religion arrogantly claims to have 'written the Bible' ... yet if
it were true, it left out the tall tale of transubstantiation,
praying to Mary, the fable of 'purgatory', Mary's presumed
'assumption' into Heaven, Mary supposedly being named by God as 'queen
of Heaven'..... Mary being authorized to receive prayer, the use of
indulgences, kneeling before statuary, fondling prayer beads, wearing
a scapular of particular color as is superstitiously done by many of
your religion, naming any pope or office of papistry, or naming the
Roman religion, PERIOD.
The TRUTH IS, your denomination did NOT give us the Bible. The LORD
DID. And that is also why the above things are not mentioned in it.

When I put my faith in Christ, I am redeemed. We believe the same thing.
We offer you, however, the guidance of the Church and the wisdom of the
Saints that have gone before us.

YOU offer people the roman catholic religion beliefs ONLY.
OUR faith is also in Christ, and we do not pray to Mary, nor do we
ACCEPT that praying to her is proper.
We pray to God, the REAL HOLY FATHER, in the perfect name of our Lord
and Savior, Jesus Christ, AS HE TAUGHT His followers to pray, from the
Bible.

As for proof, my faith is proof enough for you. I can go into great detail
this issue AS I HAVE above. You chose to ignore justification and I will
not repeat over and over again scriptural justification of the sacraments.

OUR FAITH should be proof enough for YOU, then.
Many of us have provided you biblical PROOF of the false teachings of
the roman persuasion, yet you willfully choose to ignore that, even
though the biblical proof has repeatedly been shown.
As for the Sacraments, there are TWO; BAPTISM and the LORD'S
SUPPER.... these are more commonly referred to as ORDINANCES.
The other five you call 'sacraments' are not really sacraments at all.

As for Christ being crucified for the total ransom of your sins, we teach
the same thing.

Yes, your religion does, to a point.
But- every time you say that 'mass' you imagine He is still on the
cross, in agony. This shouldn't be going on.
He died on that cross, and rose again. He said we are to participate
in the Lord's Supper AS A MEMORIAL of His death.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAA there, pahdnahhhh..... many of US have
provided YOU with biblical proof that the romish religion does indeed
teach falsely, and YOU in your blind arrogance and pride, all you do
is ignore that.
The BIBLE tells us that we should keep away from idols; yet your
church kneels before the things and tries to justify it by claiming
you are kneeling to who or what the thing supposedly represents...
The BIBLE tells us that we should not call any man FATHER, for we have
ONE Father in Heaven.. yet you arrogantly defy that, and address your
priests as "Father"...
The BIBLE tells us that we should pray to God in the perfect name of
JESUS........ yet your religion thinks it is justified in praying to
Mary...
The BIBLE tells us that we should avoid manmade tradition, yet the
romish religion insists on keeping it...
The BIBLE tells us that we should avoid vain repetition, yet look at
the long-winded 'prayers' the roman religion engages in.... rife with
repetition, repetition, repetition......
The The BIBLE tells us that we are destined to die, then face
judgement... yethe the roman religion insists that everyone must make
a stopover at an imaginary place it calls 'purgatory' first...
This actually makes our Lord Jesus look to be a liar for saying 'IT IS
FINISHED' before He breathed His last on that cross........
I could go on, but I trust you get the point???

How can we rationalize with
a group of people who ignore what generations of learned scholars have said
solely because they despise the institution of Christ (the Roman Catholic
Church).

Show me WHERE in the Bible Jesus ever named your religion as 'THE
CHURCH'.
The TRUTH IS, He did no such thing. The name 'roman Catholic' is not
even mentioned in the Bible... nor is 'pope', 'rosary',
transubstantiation', 'purgatory'.........
So how you get the 'institution of Christ' being the romish religion
is pure bunk and the result of arrogant pride as well as false
teaching.
AND furthermore-------- considering the hideous tortures and murders
of thousands of innocent people who refused to accept its
'teachings'..... I am all the more totally convinced our Lord Jesus
would have had nothing to DO with the religion of Rome.
It's greed, its arrogance, its bullying of others, it sexual
promiscuity, its history of theft of lands nad personal possessions of
its 'condemned' prisoners........ Jesus would never participate in or
condone.

You pick and chose what scripture you take literally. As do we.
If something is evidently symbolic, it isn't to be taken literally.

Such as the fable of transubstantiation.
Jesus spoke FIGURATIVELY, not literally...... yet how many of your
religion try to insist how 'wrong' we are for not believing your false
teaching on Him speakin literally there?

However, if Christ so chooses Peter to build His Church on earth, I will
ever belong to that church.

Christ simply expressed to Peter that in his finally confessing Jesus
as Lord and Savior, that he had received that knowledge from God, the
REAL HOLY FATHER. Jesus never named Peter the head of the church.
JESUS IS THE ROCK. Peter was a mere pebble in comparison, and don't
forget, Peter also denied Jesus three times before he finally came to
confess Him as Lord and Savior.......

As for John 6:53 I do not see any word "symbolic" in that passage either.
You assume that it is symbolic, though the translation of the term "eat" is
a literal word (as explained in my post above).

You imagine that your littleb aked and embossed wafer actually turns
into the flesh of Jesus simply because an old pope namined 'innocent
IIIrd' claimed it did, and demanded everyone would belive it or else.
The 'or else' meant torture and burning to death at the stake as a
so-called heretic.

While all the avobe sounds terrific, it still should convince you at
the same time that you are not correct in praying to Mary.
Mary can't hear your prayers, being dead. JESUS CAN.
Mary can't help you. JESUS CAN.
Mary can't save you. JESUS CAN.
Mary cannot intervene for you or anyone else. JESUS CAN. And DOES.
Mary cannot advocate for anyone. JESUS CAN. And DOES.

The Holy Sacrament isn't about seeking grace. It is about seeking graces
(blessings). It is about restating every time we take of the Sacrament that
we love Christ and that we wait in joyful hope for His second coming, and
until that day, we promise to always be present at the Holy Sacrament to
remember his sacrifice.

The Blessed Sacrament is just as symbolic as it is literal. You can't see
that because you are trapped outside, holding to these false arguments and
blatent lies.

Trapped outside of WHAT?
Manmade traditions, lies, mental 'conditioning' aka brainwashing,
false teachings, and deceit.
We are not 'outside' the romish denomination by force, but BY CHOICE.
Because we love the Lord, we refuse to accept statues to kneel to,
pray before, prayer beads, scapulars, 'indulgences', etc.
So kindly refrain from trying to let on we are presenting false
arguments or blatant lies.
YOUR religion is rife with lies and false teachings.

As I like to say, you are displaying a level of ineptitude which borders on
the imbecilic.

Does anyone who loves the Lord really concern themselves with your
opinion of their faith Rob?
You may refer to me as imbecilic if you so prefer. It really doesn't
matter to me whatsoever. JESUS KNOWS who and what I am, and He ALSO
knows my faith is sincere, and strong.
If it was not, I would not be taking such a strong stand against the
lies promulgated by papa-roma.

For those like you who argue against the validity of the Roman Catholic
Church, I want to tell you one thing:

Before you place your arguments you must truly understand what the Roman
Catholic Church is (teachings, doctrines, and creed). You, in your mindless
ideas and arguments, only see what you think the Roman Catholic Church is.
I am telling you that you are wrong.

"Mindless ideas and arguments'??? How singularly exciting for you.
Truth hurts, dosn't it?

At the center of my Roman Catholic faith is a deep, tranquil, solemn faith,
full of joy and adoration. When I pray, I pray to the Lord our God. When I
need help, I call to my brothers and sisters both around me and in heaven to
pray for me. When I confess, I do so with the guidance of a priest.

We confess directly to God, the REAL Holy Father, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Can't do any better than that.
JESUS never suggsted auricular confession.
You are obviously taking the Bible verse which soeaks of confessing
our sins one to another out of context.
remainder of romish religion & false doctrine removed.
-------------------------------------------------------
JESUS IS THE ROCK
God doesn't call the qualified; He qualifies the called
-------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: TRANSUBSTANTIATION?	18 Dec 2004 01:05:52 AM

We do not claim to have written the bible
We legitimately claim to be endowed with apostlitic succession through
Peter, who was given the responsibility of building the Church on earth.
I do not know your faith. It is unfamiliar to me because I do not know you
in person. I cannot know the faith of someone, nor the true content of
their heart. Therefore, it is up to respect and legitimate justification
(which I haven't found).
Baptism is a sacrament
Confirmation is a sacrament
Eucharist is a sacrament
Reconciliation is a sacrament
Anointing of the sick is a sacrament
Marriage is a sacrament
Holy Orders is a sacrament
They are indeed very real sacraments. To call them fake indicates that you
do not know what a sacrament is in the first place.
Sacrament: A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace.
The five you left our are believed to be a means of or visible form of
grace. All devout Catholics believe them to be so, hence they are
sacraments.
I have done nothing but defend my faith against all of your ignorant
attacks. You offered "biblical proof" against Catholic doctrine. I offered
sound proof against your false claims. Every instance of scripture given to
me I analyzed and found to be taken out of context, chopped in half, or had
nothing to do with the argument at hand. I gave scriptural evidence in
support of Catholic doctrine and they are <snip>'ed out or completely
ignored.
If you want to see the whole discussion on "idols" (graven images) look
somewhere upwards in this newsgroup (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
For the quickest answer (and you will have to trust me on this one because
it is from my faith) is that we do not have idols. The statues in our
churches are merely statues, just as statues in the art museums are statues.
Kneeling before something isn't kneeling to it. THey aren't graven images.
As to your father comment, surely the bible doesn't claim that one should
call your biological father, father? I address any priest as "Father" in
the same ways Jews call their "priests" Rabbi (teacher). That scriptural
passage, taken IN CONTEXT refers to the fact that one should not take
authority from a man over authority from God. Do not call any man father as
one would call the heavenly Father, Father).
Jesus tells us that anyone who prays to the Father in His name will be
blessed and will recieve what they ask for. It isn't wrong for us to ask
for the intercession of the saints in heaven (ask them to pray for us) as
well.
I recall a certain location in scripture that advises us to adhere to
tradition. You have tradition as well, whether yo usee it or not. All
cultures have traditions.
As for vain repetition, our "long-winded prayers" are only seen as
"long-winded" to you. Though the words are repeated, the prayer is
different every single time for our prayers aren't molded by our spoken
words, but by the content and intention in our heart. And when we recite
these prayers, we aren't starting them or ending them. We are joining in
the prayer. All "long-winded" Catholic prayers, as you call them, aren't
begun or started, for they are in existence at any given time. Somewhere in
the world, every single traditional Catholic prayer is being said, and hence
when we begin to recite these prayers, we are joining in unceasing prayer
(sound familiar?)
I could go on, but you get the point.
In your eyes are teachings are false and unbiblical. That is because you do
not nor cannot understand our teachings. It is because God is not calling
you. My faith is true and pure. I recognize the soundness of my faith in
the body of Christ, and in the Spirit whom He has sent to help me. In
Galatians 1, I am warned to beware those who teach these false gospels
(those gospels which are different than the gospel I have been given). You
teach a different gospel, so I call it cursed as Paul instructs me to do,
and I forever remain strong in the gospel of truth given to me through
Christ and supplemented by the Holy Catholic Church, whom God uses to reveal
His message to the world.
pope = bishop of Rome, this need not be in the bible for Peter was the first
bishop of Rome.
Rosary doesn't need to be in the bible for it was a tool of prayer. I have
something known as teh Aland Synopsis. It is a tool of prayer for me but
that isn't mentioned in the bible... does that mean it is sinful? No.
Purgatory is a concept which is sound, though I don't expect you to
understand being outside of the body of Christ.
Transubstantiation is a doctrine which is scripturally sound (though your
eyes have been closed to this truth)
The Roman Catholic Church isn't just the Vatican. It is the entire
congregation. It isn't a result of pride nor arrogance, and I can go on for
hours describing to you the validity of the teachings (I indeed would if you
met me in person with the intention to listen and only listen). Through
Peter, the Church has been established on earth. It is the CHurch Christ
referred to and those outside of it are outside of the body of Christ.
Trinity isn't in the bible as well, yet it is a common doctrine outside of
Catholic faith
As for the "thousands of murders and tortures" I am indeed