Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
CatholicApologetics.org ^ | 1985-1997 | Dr. Robert Schihl and Paul Flanagan

Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation

Catholic Biblical Apologetics


Apologetics without apology!


What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about ...? ... and why?

This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.

This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:

The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.

Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper

The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper

Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.

Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.

The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.

The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.

Spiritus Paraclitus Benedict XV, September 15, 1920
As Jerome insisted, all biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense ...
Divino Afflante Spiritus, Pius XII, September 30, 1943
... discern and define that sense of the biblical words which is called literal ... so that the mind of the author may be made clear. ... the exegete must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures.
The definition of the literal sense:
The sense which the human author directly intended and which his words convey.

The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.

1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.

Mk 14:22-24
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.

Mt 26:26-28
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.

Lk 22:15-20
He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).

Jn 6:53-56
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

Jn 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Jn 6:53
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.
Jn 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
Jn 6:55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.

Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.

Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.

1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.

Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.

In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.

Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.

The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.

By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.

The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."

The Mass: Synagogue Service and Last Supper

Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.

The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.

Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Remembrance: One Sacrifice--Calvary--Continued

Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

1 Cor 11:24-26
"This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Lk 22:19
"This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.

Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Heb 10:12
But this one (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins ...
Heb 7:27
He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself.
Heb 9:25-28
Not that he might offer himself repeatedly ... But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. ... Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many ...

The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.

Cyprian (Carthage, 200-258), Letters, No 63:9 (To Caecilian)
In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine He called His Blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord's sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion.

The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.

Catechism Section 1085
In the Liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teachings and anticipated it by his actions. When his Hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father "once for all." His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is -- all that he did and suffered for all people -- participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life.
Catechism Section 1104
Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.

Transubstantiation

The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.

Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.

Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.

Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.

From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.

Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.

Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.

Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.

In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: apologetics; catholic; catholiclist; sacraments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last
Baptism, Confirmation, The Eucharist -- the Sacraments of Initiation
1 posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

2 posted on 04/22/2010 9:56:34 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Thanks for the invite :)


3 posted on 04/22/2010 9:58:02 PM PDT by Irisshlass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Are catholics christians?


4 posted on 04/22/2010 9:59:34 PM PDT by Loud Mime (initialpoints.net - - The Constitution as the center of politics -- Download the graph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Of course, we believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Why do you ask?


5 posted on 04/22/2010 10:06:55 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
THE PRIEST IN THE COMMUNION RITES - Liturgy Prepares for Reception of the Eucharist
Novena with Saint Peter Julian Eymard for Prayer in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament [Prayer]
THE PRIEST IN THE COMMUNION RITES - Liturgy Prepares for Reception of the Eucharist
Boston Cardinal: Church Needs 'Clear' Injunction Denying Pro-Abortion Pols Communion
Benedict XVI calls priests to protect communion between God and man
Eucharist: Holy Sacrifice
Fr. Men: The Eucharist [Cath-Orth caucus]

Catholics in Costa Rica outraged by disrespect toward Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
St Anthony and the Real Presence
The Essentials of the Catholic Faith, Part Two: Channels of Grace: The Eucharist
EWTN - October 29 - 8PM - Fr. Antoine and the Eucharist
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
Radio Replies First Volume - Holy Eucharist
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
Catholic Caucus: The Spiritual Combat Ch 54. MANNER IN WHICH WE OUGHT TO RECEIVE...BLESSED SACRAMENT
Catholic Caucus: The Spiritual Combat: Ch 53. CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

A Few Texts From Saint Cyril of Jerusalem on the Eucharist
Catholic Devotional: On Visiting Jesus Christ In the Blessed Sacrament
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Focus on the Real Presence
A Chinese Girl-True Story That Inspired Bishop Fulton Sheen- Eucharist Adoration (Catholic Caucus)
Doubting Thomases(Eucharist); the Pitfalls of Folly(Catholic Caucus)
Rainbow sash-wearers prohibited from receiving [the Eucharist at Cathedral of St. Paul]
The significance of Holy Thursday (institution of the Eucharist and priesthood)
Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament [Catholic Caucus]
The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas THE HOLY EUCHARIST

Holy Communion and Non-Catholics (with a Quiz!)
Beginning Catholic: The Eucharist: In the Presence of the Lord Himself [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Receiving the Lord in Holy Communion [Ecumenical]
Faithful Invited to Follow Pope, Adore Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
Christmas and the Eucharist(Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Eucharist kneeling request sparks controversy [Catholic Caucus]
Eucharist vs. the Word (which is more important in the Catholic Church)
Christ the Miracle Worker in the Eucharist(Catholic Caucus)
Imitating Christ in the Eucharist(Catholic Caucus)
The Eucharist - the Lord's Sacrifice, Banquet and Presence (OPEN)

Pope Calls Eucharist History's Greatest Revolution [OPEN]
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 22: The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion)
A series of reflections from St. Peter Julian Eymard Blessed Sacrament(Catholic Caucus)
Eucharist, Holy Meal
Imitating Christ in the Eucharist
Christmas and the Eucharist
Prayer Before the Blessed Sacrament
This is My Body, This is My Blood
THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS THE WHOLE CHRIST
Gift Of Life, Gift Eternal: The Most Holy Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Area worshipers march to celebrate Holy Eucharist
Grace of the Eucharist is secret to holy priests, says Pope
The Disposition of Priests [Valid Mass, Valid Holy Eucharist?]
The Body of Christ?
Holy Sacrifice, Living Sacrament
Knights of the Eucharist
The Banquet of Corpus Christi - "Why did Jesus give us His Body and Blood?"
The Eucharist: Eternity and Time Together
Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation? Confirmation and First Eucharist together? (Vanity)
Reflections of Cardinal Ratzinger on the Eucharist

THE HOLY EUCHARIST: NOURISHMENT TO FINISH OUR COURSE
The Eucharist in Scripture - Part 1 - Old Testament
LITANY OF REPARATION TO OUR LORD IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
POPE GRANTS PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST
New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist
Kneeling and Faith in the Eucharist
The Immaculate Conception and the Eucharist, a course in Christian culture in Tashkent
The Year of the Eucharist by Bishop Donald Wuerl
"While We're At It": What can we do to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity?

CATHOLICS AND BAPTISTS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT
The Discipline of the Eucharist Holy See Releases Redemptionis Sacramentum...
Vatican: Matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist (April 23, 2004)
Devotion to the Holy Eucharist Advances Devotion to Jesus' Person
New rules on the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday
The Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist
The Holy Face of Jesus Christ as appeared on the Holy Eucharist
The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist [Holy Thursday] [Passover]
Holy Father stresses Need of Devotion to Holy Eucharist outside of Mass: Pope Paul VI

6 posted on 04/22/2010 10:07:41 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
Foundation

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Apologetics Without Apology
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: An Incomplete Picture
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Dearly Beloved Catholic Brothers and Sisters

Being Catholic and Christian: Faith and Salvation

Catholic Biblical Apologetics:Being Catholic & Christian:Faith and Salvation-Authoriative
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Being Catholic & Christian: Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Post-Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: A Biblical Portrait
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: "Being Saved"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Catholic Response to "Are You Saved?"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Knowledge of Salvation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Faith and Works
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Process of Christian Initiation

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Labels Among Christians
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities, Roman Catholicism
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: American Christian Branches Among European Founded Churches
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Labels Among Christians
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities, Roman Catholicism
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: American Christian Branches Among European Founded Churches
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine

Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thes 2:15) The Bible

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thess 2:15): The Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Bible: Written Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Hebrew Scriptures: Books of the Old Testament
Historical and Geographical Background for the Development of the Two Old Testament Canons
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Background Chart: Development of the Old Testament Canons
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Chronology of the Apostolic Age and the Development of the New Testament Canon
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Comparison of Terms for Disputed Books
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Inspiration of the Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation: Literal Sense
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Literary Form and History of John 6:25-69
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Interpretation of John 6:25-69
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Fuller Sense (of Scripture)
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Typical Sense (of Scripture)
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible

Divine Revelation "By Word of Mouth" (2 Thess 2:15): Handing On

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation "By Word of Mouth" (2 Thess 2:15): Handing On
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Paradosis: Handing On Divine Revelation (Orally)
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Biblical Model for Handing On Truth and Refuting Error: Acts 15, The Council of Jerusalem
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Acts 15 Model: General or Ecumenical Councils of the Church Universal
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: General Councils of the Church, 49-870
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: General Councils of the Church, 1123-1545
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: General Councils of the Church, 1870-1962
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Apostolic Fathers of the Church
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Post-Apostolic Fathers of the Church
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Doctors of the Church
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Handing On Divine Revelation: Vatican Council II

Truth Handling and Teaching Authority

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Truth Handling and Teaching Authority
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Peter: A Biblical Portrait
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Matthew Chapter 16, Verse 18: The Primacy of Peter
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Truth Handling: Infallibility
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishop of Rome
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, First and Second Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Third and Fourth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Third and Fourth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Seventh and Eighth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Ninth and Tenth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Bishops of Rome: Popes, Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Infallibility: The Magisterium, Vatican Council II, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 25

The Sacraments: The Life of The Christian

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Sacraments: The Life of The Christian
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Sacraments: Opportunities of Grace
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Baptism: Initiation and Regeneration
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Sacraments: Opportunities of Grace: Reconciliation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: Confirmation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper

7 posted on 04/22/2010 10:09:45 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

8 posted on 04/22/2010 10:40:37 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

excellent. Thanks.


9 posted on 04/23/2010 12:29:53 AM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Yes.

But I’ve always wondered how they’ve managed to take a YEARLY rememberance meal and turn it into something that happens every time you enter the doors of their churches.


10 posted on 04/23/2010 4:24:38 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

LOL, you have a point there. I disagree with the Saints being prayed to.


11 posted on 04/23/2010 7:40:57 AM PDT by Loud Mime (initialpoints.net - - The Constitution as the center of politics -- Download the graph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Did you read the reasoning above? It answers your question.


12 posted on 04/23/2010 7:55:13 AM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

We don’t pray “to” in an adoring way. We are on our knees asking for their prayers. And they hear us!

There will be apologetics thread on this subject coming up. Hope you join in that discussion.


13 posted on 04/23/2010 7:56:41 AM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Wlsie,
This is one instance of where Protestants think the biblical language is only symbolic and Catholics think of it as very literal.

“Do this in remembrance of me.”

What don’t you like about these words of Christ? We take them seriously!


14 posted on 04/23/2010 7:58:08 AM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Protestants think the biblical language is only symbolic and Catholics think of it as very literal.

While I'm not a Protestant, I don't believe Catholics take the words of the Bible "literal" when it disagrees with their beliefs and practices. REF: the word "soul (nephesh/psuche)"; the word "repent (metanoe)"; the words Elder, Bishop, overseers (episkopes, episkopon and presbuteros)"; the words translated as "hell" (sheol/hades, tartarus, gehenna), and many others that could be listed!

Good luck explaining away the literal meanings of these terms!

15 posted on 04/23/2010 9:05:28 AM PDT by Ken4TA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA

Good luck on getting a logical response to your post.


16 posted on 04/23/2010 11:36:18 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This is one instance of where Protestants think the biblical language is only symbolic and Catholics think of it as very literal.

It's about the only instance where Catholics are literal, as well.

17 posted on 04/23/2010 12:09:48 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Venatan 'Aharon `al-sheney hase`irim goralot; goral 'echad leHaShem vegoral 'echad la`Aza'zel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Did you read the reasoning above? It answers your question.

Not in 50 words or less.

18 posted on 04/23/2010 12:43:20 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
What don’t you like about these words of Christ? We take them seriously!

Nothing wrong with the words, but RCC does NOT that them literally.

Just what does the "DO this" refer to?

The YEARLY Passover Meal!

Jewsus said, "Take and eat for this is my body."

Right?

So how do we end up with Him STANDING THERE IN FRONT OF THEM with no chunks MISSING from HIS body?

Later Paul says, "YOU are the body of Christ...".

Do we now become CANNiBLES?

19 posted on 04/23/2010 12:46:34 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Okay since this seems to be an open thread I'll ask the following: Has it occured to you that...

G-d would never have an affair with a human woman? Take a mans wife. Have a hybrid god-man child out of wedlock. Take this hybrid child and offer him as a human sacrifice after expressly telling humans he hates human sacrifice.

Mislead humanity for nearly 2000 years by telling them to follow the Torah, telling humanity He is alone, besides him there is NO other, no other saviour....then say...Hey! just proving a point there! You cant do the Torah! And I am really NOT alone! Beside me is my Son, a hybrid god-man! And if you dont believe in him....you're going to hell!

20 posted on 04/23/2010 2:29:37 PM PDT by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Torah is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
If transubstantiation is true, then He is violating his own law. Lev 17:10 and other places: 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

And eating human flesh and drinking human blood is a thoroughly pagan ritual.

21 posted on 04/23/2010 2:37:55 PM PDT by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Torah is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: srweaver; Salvation
Good luck on getting a logical response to your post.

I don't really hold out any hope for a decent response. Their claim to interpret "literally" is false in most cases. It simply boils down to interpreting the Scriptures according to their dogmas and practices - the dogmas and practices being the most important to them.

Let me give them more to operate on :-)

1. The term “elder,” in its first century use and meaning meant a person of age and experience, and it is used as the word to describe the character of the leadership of local assemblies of Christians. It is the Greek word “presbuteros,” of which there were many in each local Church of Christ.

2. The term “bishop,” in its first century use and meaning meant the title of an office. This is the word the Greek speaking world at the time of Christ used to describe the office of one who “oversees” a group of people. Example: A “foreman” is an “overseer,” a “bishop” of those he is in charge of. It is the Greek word, “episkopos,” which is used to describe the office of the “elders” of the Church of Christ.

3. Putting 1 and 2 together, we find that the “presbuteros” held the office of an “episkopos,” or to put into our American English: “The ‘elders’ held the office of an ‘overseer’.”

“From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the ELDERS of the Church. When they arrived, he said to them: ’… I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole counsel of God. Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS. Be shepherds of the Church of God, which He bought with His own blood’.” (Acts 20:17, 27–28).

Now understand, the word which is here rendered “overseer” is “episkopos,” which is the same that is rendered “bishop” wherever the term “bishop” occurs in the New Testament Scriptures!

We also have to notice that Paul uses another word to describe the office of “bishop/overseer” — the word “shepherds,” which in other places is rendered as “pastors.” We have a very similar expression used by the Apostle Peter: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder … Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, …” (1 Peter 5:1–2). Here we have Peter using the words “presbuteros/elder,” and the word “shepherds,” which Paul used in the plural also to describe the office of the “episkopos/overseer/bishop.” Both Peter and Paul are in complete agreement that the word “presbuteros/elder” describes the character of the one who is an “episkopos/overseer/bishop.” Here, then, are two instances in which the “elders” are commanded to do the work of an “overseer,” which shows that when the writers of the New Testament used the term “elder” as an official title, they always applied it to the “bishops” or “overseers” of the local Church of Christ.

Let's see how Salvation (them) weasel their way out of what I just brought out from the Scriptures!

22 posted on 04/23/2010 3:12:19 PM PDT by Ken4TA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA; Salvation

Your problem is that you “think,” and use consistent logic in accordance with scriptural norms (and observe correct word usage).

Didn’t you know that on these Catholic posts you are supposed to just “drink the Kool-Aid.”

What amazes me, though, is the lack of even an attempt to address those who challenge the erroneous (from a Biblical perspective, not one of fantasy) content posted.

You would think if the poster didn’t want to have a discussion, just a cheerleading rally, they would post in a “caucus” forum.


23 posted on 04/23/2010 4:26:52 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
But I’ve always wondered how they’ve managed to take a YEARLY rememberance meal and turn it into something that happens every time you enter the doors of their churches.

The Jewish Pentecost is yearly. The Eucharist is celebrated more frequently because it is the communion with our Lord and God whose Body and Blood we are commanded to eat and drink. John 6: gets into it pretty good.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

is a verse dump with a long list of proofs from the OT, the Gospels and Paul. But for frequency, it leans upon 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

24 posted on 04/23/2010 4:52:34 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

Interesting perspective.

G-d would never have an affair with a human woman?

Could he impregnate a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Take a mans wife.

Actually, Joseph decided to take her for his wife AFTER it was found out she was with child during their betrothal. He could have put her away.

Have a hybrid god-man child out of wedlock.

Actually, Mary and Joseph were married when the Messiah was born. As far as Jesus being fully human and fully divine you will have to deal with it or ignore it (for now).

Take this hybrid child and offer him as a human sacrifice

Actually, God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice, sinful humanity did. Of course it was in God’s heart to allow the Messiah to die for our sins, otherwise all men would perish.
Jesus freely offered His life.

John 10:17-18 (New International Version)
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

after expressly telling humans he hates human sacrifice.

Yes. He does. But His love is such that He would sacrifice Himself rather than allow others to die without a chance. Even as many of our brave troops willingly lay down their lives for their friends in times of war...willingly sacrificing themselves so that others may live.

Mislead humanity for nearly 2000 years by telling them to follow the Torah, telling humanity He is alone, besides him there is NO other, no other saviour....then say...Hey! just proving a point there! You cant do the Torah! And I am really NOT alone! Beside me is my Son, a hybrid god-man!

There are Hebrew words for absolute unity and compound unity. God is “One,” just not in the way many think, one person or individual. Humanity’s understanding was so corrupted in the garden through Adam and Eve’s disobedience that God had to establish a beachhead in order to invade the fallen race with redemption. Consider how much difficulty He had delivering Israel from Egypt. The problem was not getting them physically out of Egypt, but in getting Egypt (and bondage) out of the Hebrew heart. It’s all in the Torah. In a similar way to the Allies landing on the continent on D-Day, where Germans were killed as fast as they could be, for the purpose of establishing a foothold, God placed his hand on Abraham to separate a people for Himself. Since D-Day the rules have changed and Allies are no longer killing Germans, as Jews are no longer killing man, woman, and child of the cities they would occupy. Abraham is the father of not just one, but multiple nations.

Genesis 17:4 (New International Version)
4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.

His relationship with God also extends to the Gentiles:

Genesis 18:18 (New International Version)
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.

And if you don’t believe in him....you’re going to hell!

You have an issue with God allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own decisions? That’s not a very Jewish perspective (if you are Jewish).


25 posted on 04/23/2010 4:59:52 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
What amazes me, though, is the lack of even an attempt to address those who challenge the erroneous (from a Biblical perspective, not one of fantasy) content posted.

Yes, it's an astounding SILENCE!

26 posted on 04/23/2010 5:08:10 PM PDT by Ken4TA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
"Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive..."

From Rabbi Singer:

It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman." Let's now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14.

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand -- the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field, and you shall say to him, 'Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: "Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us." So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . ." ' " The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." Then he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.

Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

So, the notion of G-d impregnating a human woman has more basis in Grecco-Roman pagan mythology than the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

"Actually, Joseph decided to take her for his wife after.."

Yes but He was engaged or betrothed. So, G-d impregnated an engaged woman? Knowing the potential scandal? It is still taking a mans woman. That is not the behavior of a Holy G-d.

"Mary and Joseph were married when the Messiah was born...

Yes but Joseph was not the father. G-d and Mary were not married, so the baby was born out of wedlock.

"God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice.."

John 3:16? And he humbled himself to death...death on the cross. And if Jesus is God...

Again, a hybrid god-man, offering himself as a human sacrifice is thoroughly pagan.

"Jesus freely offered His life

He is not allowed to do that. No man can die for another mans sins...Ezekiel 18

19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

" ...allow others to die without a chance..."

Again, G-d would never give us the Torah if it was futile! What kind of cruel god would do that? He has given us means of grace (forgiveness) by prayer, repentance and charity. Blood animal sacrifices were only for unintentional sins.

So, there is no need for a Roman hybrid god-man to offer himself as a human sacrifice. G-d had already given man everything he needed to atone for sins, with and without a Temple. And since G-d says vicarious atonement is invalid (Ezekiel 18 and other places) the whole man from Nazareth thing is of no value.

27 posted on 04/23/2010 8:46:55 PM PDT by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Torah is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

bkmk


28 posted on 04/23/2010 8:59:08 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Wlsie,

Sorry Elsie!


29 posted on 04/23/2010 9:02:34 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA

As far as I know all the Catholics I am acquainted with take all those words at their face meaning. We aren’t as uneducated as many Protestants think.

But it’s because Catholics ARE reading and studying the Bible now!

Remember, I said you could always come back.


30 posted on 04/23/2010 9:04:34 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

Was my response logical?


31 posted on 04/23/2010 9:05:00 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Oh, no, it isn’t. Catholics take the Bible quite literally in the Luke’s narrative of the Archangel Gabriel’s visit to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don’t.

Also when Mary visits Elizabeth........that narrative is one that Catholics believe word for word.

“How is it that the “Mother of my Lord” should visit me?

Translation — this is where Catholics get the title for Mary as Mother of God!


32 posted on 04/23/2010 9:07:26 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

It’s not cannabalistic, Elsie. He broke and blessed the bread and said — “Take this and eat; this is my Body.” It’s about transubstantiation.

Why would Catholics not take this seriously when that particular narrative talks about many of Jesus’ followers leaving?

Jesus was telling the truth and we believe his words about the bread becoming his body.

Sorry that you don’t believe that.


33 posted on 04/23/2010 9:10:03 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

I hope you are aware that the Pentateuch is in the Catholic Bible.


34 posted on 04/23/2010 9:11:10 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

Christ replaced the Old Covenant of the Old Testament and gave us his New Covenant of the New Covenant.

There are many accounts of Jesus confronting the Pharisees and Sadduccees on the matters of cleansing hands, eating, etc. Picking grain on the Sabbath is another one.

He even confronted them when he cured someone on the Sabbath by asking if their ox were stuck in the mud, would not they go out to rescue it on the Sabbath?


35 posted on 04/23/2010 9:13:35 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

**What amazes me, though, is the lack of even an attempt to address those who challenge the erroneous (from a Biblical perspective, not one of fantasy) content posted.**

Good grief, what do you think all the apologetics are doing?

They are addressing these beliefs from a Biblical standpoint. LOL! (I think you knew that, right?)


36 posted on 04/23/2010 9:15:28 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
Missed a topic....regarding compound unity. From Messiah Truth.

Is the Trinity Found in the Torah? "To whom then will you liken G-d, or what likeness compare with him?" Isaiah 40:18 (NRS)

One of the most desperate (and often offensive) attempts to give Christianity the air of validity is trying to find evidence of plurality in the Creator. There are a variety of problems with this theory, which we shall explore below.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (KJV) In the beginning, who created the heaven and the earth? (Note: most translations use a plural of "heavens.") G-d did. No help from Jesus or a Holy Ghost is indicated here. However, some Christians can’t let it go right there. So, they pore over the Hebrew, trying to find evidence that will support their beliefs, trying to find evidence that the Jews were wrong.

Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word.

I’m sure some people who read this essay know of the traditional Jewish toast, "L’Chaim!" To life! "Chaim" means life (singular), yet it uses a plural suffix. The word for "water" is "mayim," which uses a plural suffix. The word for "face" is "panim." Even the word for "heaven," "shamayim" used in the first verse of Genesis has the plural ending. Clearly, not every word in Hebrew that employs a plural suffix is actually a plurality. Just as it is not true that every word in English that ends in "s" is a plural word, not every word in Hebrew that ends with "im" is plural.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: (KJV)

In Judaism, we call this verse the "Shema," which is the word for "hear." It is our fundamental declaration of faith.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: HASHEM is our G-d, HASHEM is the One and Only. (Artscroll) A slightly different wording, but the meaning is the same. When I was a child, the translation I was taught was "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our G-d, the Lord is One!" Believe it or not, some Christians try to prove that the Trinity is in this verse from Deuteronomy! Let us observe the Hebrew rendering:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Shema, Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Literally, the verse reads "Hear Israel Hashem Our G-d Hashem One." The word "echad" in Hebrew means "one." There are instances, as some Christians are quick to point at, where the word "echad" denotes a compound unity. They point to passages in Genesis, for instance:

Genesis 1:5 G-d called to the light: "Day," and to the darkness He called: "Night." And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Artscroll)

The word "one" used here is "echad." Christians point to other instances where "echad" is used to denote a compound unity, and as such, they declare that every time "echad" is used, that it denotes a compound unity, and therefore, The Lord must be a compound unity, proving that the Trinity is in the Torah! Correct? No, this is totally incorrect. The word "echad" in Hebrew actually works in the same way the word "one" does in English. It can mean either a single unity or a compound unity. These Christians are very quick to point to Genesis 1:5, but you’ll never see them point at verses like these:

Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go. (KJV)

2 Samuel 13:30 And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom hath slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left. (KJV)

2 Samuel 17:12 So shall we come upon him in some place where he shall be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground: and of him and of all the men that [are] with him there shall not be left so much as one. (KJV)

Ecclesiastes 4:8 There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith he], For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is] also vanity, yea, it [is] a sore travail. (KJV)

The word for "one" used here is "echad." "Not one of the cattle" Was each cow a compound unity? Were the king’s sons more than one person each? Of course, not. Just as "one" in English can work both ways, so can the word "echad."

In trying to prove a plurality, all that a Christian does is create the possibility of a 2-part, or even a 2-thousand part G-d. The fact remains:

Nowhere in the Torah will you find that G-d is comprised of a Trinity.

At the Council of Nicea (325 CE), the doctrine of the Bianity became canonized, equating Jesus to the substance of G-d in Christian theology. The Council of Constantinople in 381 CE added the Holy Spirit to the Bianity and the Trinity was canonized. These councils contradicted the Torah of Moses. See Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (13:1) for instructions regarding changes to the Torah. Who are we to believe? Moses, or these councils?

37 posted on 04/23/2010 9:47:33 PM PDT by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Torah is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

You posted:

21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.

Have you done so? Are you righteous before God based on your behavior and the keeping of the “law” in the Torah?


38 posted on 04/23/2010 11:07:17 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

Perhaps you could explain away this verse as well:

Micah 5:2  But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

You stated: Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation (”virgin” in Isaiah 7:14), and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”

To which modern “Christian” translations do you refer? I just checked around 10 of them, and only one used young woman, which could or could not mean virgin — the rest translate the Hebrew word to virgin.

“There is no instance where it can be proved that ‘almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where ‘almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac.” (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

You further posted: The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity.

Actually, ha’almah is used 7 times in the Old Testament. 4 times it is translated as virgin in the KJV, twice as maid, and once as damsel.

Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

Exodus 2:8  And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.

Psalms 68:25  The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.

Proverbs 30:19  The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.

Song of Songs 1:3  Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

Song of Songs 6:8  There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

Isaiah 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


39 posted on 04/23/2010 11:44:00 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

You added: Missed a topic....regarding compound unity.

You forgot to expound on Genesis 1:26 and 27:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


40 posted on 04/23/2010 11:54:10 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Congratulations! Your post, though terse, was a post. I have noticed you completely ignoring several substantive posts regarding the topics you brought up in the first place, so this is progress. Keep up the good work!


41 posted on 04/24/2010 12:00:36 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.

If we wanted to be Catholics (or learn about Catholicism), we could go to Catholic churches/seminaries/websites, etc.

If we want to discuss something with a Catholic, that he or she brings up, we respond to the content of their post, and should expect the courtesy of a reply, though it is evident that many have been burned by the “dump and run” tactics I have seen repeatedly in just the past few weeks, and don’t really expect a reply.

Sad. (Not LOL as you seem to think.)


42 posted on 04/24/2010 12:14:06 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
 The Eucharist is celebrated more frequently because it is the communion with our Lord and God whose Body and Blood we are commanded to eat and drink.
 
Jesus was speaking to a group of JEWS who had gathered to celebrate a YEARLY ritual of rememberence.
 
 
I find no 'command' to do ANYTHING any differently.
 
 
 
First Corinthians 11:26
 
 
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

43 posted on 04/24/2010 5:00:54 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I cna raed wrdos thta rea spleld wrogn.


44 posted on 04/24/2010 5:01:58 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
It’s about transubstantiation.

No it isn't.

Why would Catholics not take this seriously when that particular narrative talks about many of Jesus’ followers leaving?

Because the very idea that HE, Jesus, was the One to which the LAMB pointed was offensive!

NOT the 'eating of his flesh'.

They JUST - DIDN'T - GET - IT!

When Thomas finally said, "My Lord and my God!" he didn't try to lick the blood from Jesus' hand!

On the road to emmaus the disciples had to have EXPLANATION of what the Scriptures had said about Him.

HE ate with them and NO mention of a eucharistic ritual took place.

45 posted on 04/24/2010 5:11:11 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
As far as I know all the Catholics I am acquainted with take all those words at their face meaning.

Does that mean that you are in complete agreement with what I brought out from the Bible? If so, the the whole structure of the Latin Church is suspect of being a super cult led by an influential leader who represents Christ on earth. In doing so, it has created a vast bureaucracy to control its membership, which they call the laity.

There are no special castes of "priests" to perform ritualistic exercises such as was found in Judahism in contrast to what is found in the Bible - that is the misuse and misunderstanding to the term "presbuteros", which the RCC redefined to mean a "priest".

But it’s because Catholics ARE reading and studying the Bible now!

Yes, and many of them are coming out of the RCC to join a real Biblical Christian church.

Remember, I said you could always come back.

Yes, I remember, but why should I deny what I've found out and return to error?

All in all, are you afraid or ashamed to respond to what I said in my previous messages? Or is it that you are faced with the truth and wish to ignore it? Which is it?

46 posted on 04/24/2010 7:25:16 AM PDT by Ken4TA (The truth hurts those who don't like truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity.

I suppose an alternate explanation is that the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of "ha’almah" by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.

And this, considering the quote above, underlines the central question: what is the payoff for deliberately choosing the one meaning of the word that most completely obliterates the significance of what the gospel author and many others claimed if it were read as they and others of their time understood it in its context?

What this person does with his or her treatment of "virgin" is typical of the "it's only" approach to minimization. If true, the target of minimization would be too psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually disruptive to maintain sanity or a claim of honesty in dealing with the purported facts. So it usually comes down to something like this, "If what the gospel writers are saying is true, then anyone who rejects their claims is in deep crap. I don't want to be in deep crap; therefore, what they are claiming cannot possibly be true because "it's only" this or that due to their dishonesty or their ignorance of the real world and I'm off the hook for any moral claims against my life and I can do what I like because I must only to my own self be true."

Something similar is seen in all the cults that have spun off of Judaism and Christianity. Look at Islam, for instance. If everything of a Christian or Jewish origin were removed from Islam, there would be little left. The general content of the lives of the patriarchs and prophets and Mary and Jesus is retained to provide the religious and historical context without which Islam's claims would be meaningless. But everything having to do with what both the Jews and the Christians assert to be the central meaning of their stories is ignored, excised, or explained away. This is done because if what the writers of the Bible say the relationship of God to the Jewish people means for those living in that region and what the deity and resurrection of Jesus means for the world is true, then what Islam is claiming for itself cannot possibly be true.
47 posted on 04/24/2010 8:06:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA; Salvation

“Literal” does not mean “morphological”. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, — even a leader of animals — does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.

“Literal” means “in the sense directly meant and understood by the writer and contemporaneous reader”. For example, “this is my body” literally means the physical body. The opposite of that is allegorical, for example, “this is my body” really refers to my friends or relatives. The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context. For example, “I am the door through which sheep enter the pen” cannot be taken literally because the context is an allegory of the Church being like a pen of sheep.


48 posted on 04/24/2010 10:02:35 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Jesus was speaking to a group of JEWS who had gathered to celebrate a YEARLY ritual of rememberence.

If you put the instruction of eating His body and drinking His blood (remember that the Jews recoiled in abhorrence at the idea of cannibalism), along with the Last Supper (which replaced Passover for Christianity), and the writing of Paul (as often as you do this), and go to the early Church's practices - they started to celebrate the Mass as often as possible. Which in the Church is daily.

Beyond this and other Scriptural support, we have the early Church documents - the Didache, Ignatius and Justin Martyr expanding upon the Gospel and Pauline verses regarding the Eucharist.

49 posted on 04/24/2010 10:05:43 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960
G-d would never have an affair with a human woman? Take a mans wife. Have a hybrid god-man child out of wedlock. Take this hybrid child and offer him as a human sacrifice after expressly telling humans he hates human sacrifice.

These things (leaving aside a deliberately comical reference to them) are indeed miraculous acts of sovereign God, but by what logic are they something Sovereign God would "never" do?

50 posted on 04/24/2010 10:06:11 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson