Featured Does the RCC have An Inferior View On the Bible?

Where do you get that I read a lot into those words? Please show me.

Where in the Bible do you get that God says you cannot use any type of birth control? If you do not believe God says not to use any type of birth control, then say, “I do not believe God says not to use birth control.” If you believe God says not to use birth control, then say, “I believe God says not to use any birth control as stated in _____ scripture.”

Weird, strange, and bizarre come to mind.

 

The word was changed on purpose. They substituted a lie for the intent of the Lord's Supper. If you are so thrilled with their doctrine, join them. The Lord's Supper is not a magic act, it is a holy remembering of what Christ did for us.

 

Did not mean to repost this.

Where do you get that I read a lot into those words? Please show me.

Where in the Bible do you get that God says you cannot use any type of birth control? If you do not believe God says not to use any type of birth control, then say, “I do not believe God says not to use birth control.” If you believe God says not to use birth control, then say, “I believe God says not to use any birth control as stated in _____ scripture.”

Weird, strange, and bizarre come to mind.

 

Then you do admit this is a false allegation and will repent, and ask forgiveness for such untruths.

 

How about just answering the question in a normal decent manner.

The question was, "Where do you get that the Bible says we are not to use any type of birth control?"

Here are two normal and decent ways to answer that question.

One: “I do not believe God says not to use birth control.”

Two: “I believe God says not to use birth control as stated in scripture ____.”

Now go reread what you have been saying to me for a reply…you even want me to ask for forgiveness. All I can do is ask if you are okay.

 

DHK is fine and his theology is solid. He is one of the most perceptive people I have seen for recognizing the Catholic Church for what it is. So you can stop worrying about his medical condition.

Reading the Bible, I see nothing saying not to use birth control. There is plenty to say about abortion, since that is murder. You know, if one ponders it, the ultimate form of birth control is an ugly face and smelly armpits.

 

This debate group is about doctrines. This is not a debate group about personal opinions about others; nor is it a group for DHK to speak crudely and obnoxiously to anyone.

Many people with all kinds of beliefs can point out the error of the Catholic Church that certainly does not mean they do not have false doctrines themselves just think of John Calvin.

His medical condition you say. Why could it not be an attitude problem?


DHK wanted me to repent for asking him, "Where in the Bible do you get that God says you cannot use any type of birth control?"

He also went on about bombs and crocodiles.

I am sure that many do not agree with you about the ugly face and smelly armpits.

 

Can you show that to be true? If that's what happened, there should be a record showing that they (the RCC) "...substituted a lie for the intent of the Lord's Supper." Otherwise, you're just blowin' hot air.

No it's not magic - its supernatural and happens because God set it up that way. Go back and read John 6, then get back to me when you have a better handle on it.

WM

 

Such power for the Catholic priests, what a gift, to make wafers turn into the real body of Jesus. It is as if your priests are God.
It is strange how there is nothing in the Bible giving instructions on doing this.
Such sin from the Catholic Church.

 

And for my next trick, I will pull a rabbit out of a hat. You totally misunderstand the Lord's Supper. In the first place, it is administered by a local New Testement Church. The RCC has about as much in common with a local New Testement Church as the government does with efficiency. Next, where do you see in Scripture that the Lord Supper was a presto changeo event from wine to blood, sacred blood at that. This is not Indiana Jones and his search for the Holy Grail. The Bible says drink the wine and eat the bread, this do in rememberence of Me. The Lord did not institute the Lord's Supper for the purpose of another SyFy movie. So tell me, after the transsubstitution is complete, what do you do with the elements, sell them with the holy water for a discount?

As far as a Catholic Priest forgiving sins, administering the sacrememts (there are only two), I believe a used car salesman would have more integrity. How dare a thug like that claim that an infant is in the family of God after sprinkling it with water? Read Matthew 28, or did you skip that part?

Here is a cheer for you.
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate.

Anyway,

Avi Maria
Gee its good to see ya

 

The priest put the wafers, what they call the real body of Christ in a box. The parishioners can then come to church and be near the "real body of Jesus" this is called Eucharist Adoration. The Catholics get to come and worship the wafers.

The priest eats any leftover body of Jesus, because they say it would be a sin to throw out "Jesus’ body." Some have been known to feed the leftovers to birds.

What sin of the Catholic Church. I want to expose their falseness.

 

Moriah, you are not an honest poster. You are deceitful.
Here is my original post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1871026&postcount=12

Where, Moriah, did I quote any Scripture? Give the chapter and verse of any Scripture that I quoted?
Yet the exact words of your response to that post were:

And the discussion proceeded from there.
You are dishonest. I never referred to the Bible at all, and yet you implied that I did? Why the deception. Why the lie? Now is the time to repent. Tomorrow may be too late.

 

To truly understand the significance of the Lord's Supper, we must understand the importance of blood sacrifice to Judaism in Jesus' time. On Yom Kippur, the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies and sacrifice a goat, upon which he would symbolically place the sins of the people, and a sheep. The blood would then be sprinkled around the sacred space and over the people. Jesus offering his body and blood at the Last Supper was a deliberate extension-fulfillment-of this offering. He was the sacrificial lamb, the scapegoat, upon which the temple is rebuilt-upon which reconciliation is offered.

 

Yes, I understand the history. We are talking about the proper meaning and administration of the Lord's Supper. It is to be administered by a New Testement local church. Everyone partaking is to examine themselves for worthiness. The Lord instituted the Lord's Supper before He was betrayed. Corinthians and the Gospels talk in detail about it. If Christ talked about the scapegoat, the Holy of Holies, and other ceremonies, it is not recorded in Scripture. He said "Do this in rememberence of Me." Christ did not mention putting the elements in a handy dandy transsubstantiation box, closing the sliding doors, put it on 300 degrees for half an hour, and voila, out comes a physical manifestation of Jesus Christ.

The significance of the OT picture you painted is foreshadowing what Christ did on the cross. It was not intended to be the opposite way where Christ follows the OT pattern.

Why is it so hard to take the meaning of the Lord's Supper as it was intended in Scripture? Why do we have to add magic acts, spritual to physical interdeminsional travel, and other such nonsense.

The elements, in their final state, are suppose to represent the physical body of Christ. This is so the Catholic congregation can be near His body. Why??? That is not the purpose of the atoning death, burial and ressurection of Jesus. The purpose is for the forgiveness of our sins through faith. It is a spiritual matter. At best, transsubstantiation takes away from the purpose of the cross, and at worst, borders on heresey.

Isn't the Holy Spirit living in a person, faith in Jesus, and justified before the Father enough? This is nothing but a worldly mindset. How can the supposed One True Church have such a flawed doctrine, with all the theological genuises in the denomination and 2000 years to figure it out, since, as we all know, you all go back to the Apostles. It is hard to picture Peter in a beenie cap.

 

Christ built one church - not many. Remember "upon this rock I will build my chruch." No mention of churches much less one called "the New Testement Church."

Well, scripture, history, and even a few well know Protestants don’t agree with you. I will address all three in sequence.

Step #1 - Scripture:​

John 6:47-68
47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Here Jesus repeatedly commands His listeners to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” and it was in the context of Jewish culture that those same listeners took Him literally, as evidenced by their question “How can this man give us his flesh to eat ….This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Cannibalism was one of the most egregious sins to the Jews – this is why many simply left him. However, Jesus didn’t say … wait, my words are symbolic and he did not, as he always did when using parables, explain His true meaning. No – instead He looked to the Twelve and asked them if they wanted to leave as well.

St. Paul confirms this fact…

1 Corinthians 11:27-3027
So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking the cup. 29 For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.

The last time I looked, it is impossible to eat crackers and drink grape juice unworthily. Further, eating a symbolic Lord’s Supper doesn’t make one sick or cause one’s death!

These passages are so compelling that they played a seminal role in producing a virtually unanimous patristic acceptance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

continued...

 

Step #2 - Historicity​

St. Ignatius
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons. (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, [110 A.D.])

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead. ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. [circa 80-110 A.D.])

St. Justin Martyr
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." (First Apology", Ch. 66, inter [A.D. 148-155])
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

continued...

 

Step #3 - Father of the Reformation:​

Martin Luther
1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Martin Luther’s take on the passage clearly shows the correct interpretation…

“I confess that if Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament, he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy… But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage. “ (Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit, 1524; LW, 68)

Further, Luther takes a realistic, concrete, and non-symbolic interpretation the passage below…

“The bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he [Paul] says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken bread he takes therewith the body of Christ.” (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacrements, 1525; LW, 40, 178)

Baptist Apologist James White holds the Zwinglian symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper as shown below:

“Participation in the Supper is meant to be a memorial (not a sacrifice) of the death of Christ, not the carefree and impious party it had become at Corinth (White, 175)

Martin Luther refuted that position and sums up his exegetical argument:

“It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, ‘Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,’ but ‘Who unworthily eats and drinks’” (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 183-184)

Conclusion:​

I have shown from scripture, history, and from - Luther the author of the Reformation - that the Real Presence in the Eucharist was taught and believed for more than 1,500 years until after the reformation. To hold otherwise is to believe that God, in his unfathomable wisdom, allowed His Church to teach error for 1,500 years while the gates of hell actually prevailed against it. Clearly, the scriptural and historical facts are indisputable.

Oh Lordy... The whole world trembles in the face of your towering intellect.

WM

 

You obviously have no idea what Icons are about, or you wouldn't have said that as you did. Someday you'll cringe when you read your post.

They aren't praying to the statue, they are praying to Jesus. They are before the statue as a focus for them, in their prayers. Protestants wear crosses on their necks, that's idolatry, scripture says to stone them all.

 

The instant the egg and sperm unite in holy matrimony, you have a human being.

Therefore Birth Control, which kills that union is murder.

Thus birth control is an instrument for murder.

That's the argument. As it is, it's rather factually correct and non reaching.

IF you believe the egg and sperm make a human, then it is murder. You stopped a life from happening. Life is something replicating itself, and an embryo certainly does that.

PLUS I've never seen anything but a human baby born from such a union as a female egg and male sperm, so until you can show someone that it's NOT going to be a human baby, they can claim it's murder.

But, the opposition argument would be, Life beings at first breath for the Jews, so an abortion in the time of Christ would not have been violating any laws of God.

There you have it.