from the forum:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion will tell you that you must turn or burn; and even though we know that any parent with such a conditional love would be considered evil, religion seems satisfied with such a God. Today I have found that both of my idealistic axioms are true. God is the ultimate designer, and his love is really unconditional.

You will only find peace in God as you find the love in God and you won’t find the love of God in historic religion.

You can’t be taught the joy of God, you can only experience it. Once you have really embraced his ‘unconditional love’ your desires and actions will follow freely... without any contradiction.

Religion isn’t all bad, there are many who have found a life changing and genuine relationship with God through traditional religion (you’ll find a lot of them here). However, as a rule, religion will change the outside, but only his love can change the inside.

God bless your journey and may I encourage you to not look for Him the orthodox way.***"

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

My reply:
Religion will tell you that you must turn or burn? Fear of punishment is imperfect contrition. One is supposed to avoid offending God because one loves God. The hellfire and brimstone message might scare some people straight, but it turns many people off. God's love is not conditional. It's our free will that is the problem. We have to learn the hard way that sin is not in our best interest because it cuts off our relationship with the infinate love of God that we crave.

"You won’t find the love of God in historic religion?" I don't know which ones you have experienced, but I don't think this is the norm. One can find a loving God anywhere, even in a historic religion. Don't underestimate what God can do. If only a few people found God in historic religion, it would not have continued to exist. The historic religions, such as the Catholic Church, have a systematic approach to interior conversion. For example, some books have become classics because they have helped so many people. Here are some of them:

Imitation of Christ, Thomas a Kempis
Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius of Loyola
Introduction to the Devout Life, St. Francis De Sales
Interior Castle, Teresa of Avila
Dark Night of the Soul, by St. John of the Cross
These books are for people who want a very deep union with Jesus and a deeper conversion. They are not for beginners. In fact, the best books on prayer are written by Catholics. If you haven't check them out, you're missing the deeper levels of intimacy with Jesus. You can't stereotype historic religions. They are not all alike. Sometimes the orthodox way is the easiest way because one does not have to reinvent the wheel or waste time on the wild goose chases. I'm sorry you have not had a good experience with historic religions.

In another forum:
----Q--------
"God's time is not linear like ours... take God off the linear timeline and this aremnian/ calvanistic argument ceases to exist."
-------------
God lives in the eternal NOW. He has no past or future as we think of them. However, we live in space and time, where one event precedes another. We see things as cause and effect. Predestination assumes past and future events. If one further assumes that salvation is a process of a free will cooperating with grace instead of instantaneous, the argument gets even weaker.
------Q-------
"A wise brother on another board, who has struggled long and hard with the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, confided to me not too long ago that he thinks in the end, when we get to heaven, we will learn that the truth of it all is somewhere in the middle, that God elected, but we still had free will somehow."
-------------
If one assumes free will is true and that God wills all people to be saved, predestination means something entirely different. One either accepts the free gift of salvation or rejects it. A God that gave us no choice whether to love him or not would not be honored by our choice to love him.
---Q-----
"God knows what choices we will make before we make it."
-------
Foreknowledge does not necessarily imply controlling what happens if free will is involved. If a meteor crashes into Earth, we're probably doomed, but there is nothing I can do about it. God does not suspend the laws of physics or of free will because that is how he made the world.

Debate on the virginity of Mary:
Just as "brother" can mean a close male relative, the word "sister" can mean close female relative. Mary, mother of Jesus, and Mary, mother of James and Joseph/Joses, were sister-in-laws because Clophas was a brother of Joseph.

Eusebius of Caesarea’s church history, Book 3, Chapter 11 says, "Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph."

I have a sister and a sister-in-law named Carol. I also have two brother-in-laws named Mike. It is very possible to have the same name used more than once in a family.

The idea that Mary did not remain a virgin started with the Helvidius/Antidicomarites heresy. For more information about the Helvidius/Antidicomarites heresy (4th c.) go to http://www.geocities.com/marlon_rene/third_fourth_cent.htm#Manich%E6ism
-------
James (the younger, listed in Acts 15) and and Joseph (Joses) are the sons of Clophas (Alphaeus) and Jesus's mother’s sister, Mary (John 19:25, Mt 27:56, MK 15:40). Since there were three Marys at the cross according to John 19:25, one has to keep them straight by saying who they were related to; ie, Mt 27:56 says Mary the mother of James and Joseph (notice it does not say Jesus) to keep her separated from Mary mother of Jesus or Mary Magdela. Therefore, they are not the sons of Joseph and Mary.

Lk 5:9-10 says the other James (killed in Acts 12) and John are the sons of Zebedee; therefore not the sons of Joseph and Mary. Mark 1:19, Mk 4:17, 10:35, Mt 4:21 also say that.

Luke 6:13-16 says Judas is the son of James; therefore also not the son of Joseph and Mary.

John 6:71 says Judas the betrayer is the son of Simon Iscariot; therefore also not the son of Joseph and Mary.

Mt 16:17 says Simon is the son of Jonah; therefore also not the son of Joseph and Mary.

----Quote-----

One more thing, if Mary and Joseph were given the parentship of the Lord, should they not be better examples to him than to intentionally disobey the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply?"

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

There was also a law against a woman having more than one spouse. Since Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, perhaps she believed she had the Holy Spirit for a spouse. If you were Joseph, would you want to get it on with the mother of God? I think he would feel unworthy.

There are hints that Mary is prefigured by the ark of the covenant. That is, the ark held the word of God. Mary's womb held The Word of God. 2) When Mary visited Elizabeth (Luke), it is spoken about in the same way as when the ark of the covenant was brought up to Jerusalem. The ark of the covenant was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit in the same way Gabriel says Mary will be. And what would happen to anyone who touched the ark? They would be struck dead. I don't think Joseph would dare touch the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

----Quote-----

Then there is that ossuary with the inscription: James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.

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

That still does not say "son of Joseph and Mary". You are reading between the lines.Betty G.


The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. (purpetual virginity of Mary) Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony.

Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and maintains against Helvidius three propositions [as recorded in] The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary by St. Jerome "Against Helvidius"

The Perpetual Virginity Of Blessed Mary By St. Jerome"Against Helvidius" http://www.aggreen.net/theotokos/vir_mary2.html

If a heresy started in the 4th century, it can't be the teaching of the apostles.

----------------------------------------------
What I want to focus on is the word "echad" which is translated "one." However, this "oneness" is not an absolute unity, but a collective unity.

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

Reply:
Here's another interesting tidbit. Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created..." The word "Elohim" is the word for God. The "im" on the end of that word makes it plural, just as adding "s" makes a word plural in English. So from the very beginning, God was a plural oneness - a Trinity. "Let US make man in OUR likeness." as in Gen 1:26 says. This info was what converted a Jewish person I know.

We're having a discussion about Mary's virginity at Christianity.com forums:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all those who rely on "tradition" outside the bible,

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



Some people claim that Jesus had brothers, which means his mother, Mary, did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth. To support this, they quote Mk 6:17 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”

Let’s look at what the rest of the Bible can tell us about these “brothers” of Jesus. I can't do this in this forum because it requires using a table to display the info. So go to:

http://www.geocities.com/bettyg51/BrothersJesus.htm

There is no place in the Bible that anyone is the son of Joseph and Mary other than Jesus. James and Joses and Judas and Simon are elsewhere in the Bible described as sons of different people than Mary and Joseph. If that is true, they can't be also children of Mary and Joseph. It is reading between the lines and assuming that "brothers of Jesus" means the same thing as children of Mary and Joseph. It is not. The web site above spells this out or you can check it out for yourself. Look up John 19:25, Mt 27:56, MK 15:40, MK 15:47, Lk 5:9-10, Mark 1:19, Mark 3: 15-19, MK 10:35, Mt 4:21, Mt 16:17, Luke 6: 13-16, John 6:71, Acts 1:13.

Catholics don't make assumptions or read between the lines. Brothers can mean the same as cousin, nephew or other male relative. For example, Gen 14:14 ... Lot, Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:26-28), described as Abraham's brother (KJV).
Gen 29:15 ... Laban, Jacob's uncle, calls Jacob his "brother" (KJV).

One does not have to rely on tradition to get the truth in this matter. It takes some detective work, but it is all in the Bible. I know Mary isn't the main focus, but I care about the truth. I don't want people to assume things that aren't true.
God bless,
Betty G.


-----Quote----
I looked at your chart and don't get it.
----------------

James (the younger, listed in Acts 15) and and Joseph (Joses) are the sons of Clophas (Alphaeus) and Jesus's mother’s sister, Mary (John 19:25, Mt 27:56, MK 15:40). Since there were three Marys at the cross according to John 19:25, one has to keep them straight by saying who they were related to; ie, Mt 27:56 says Mary the mother of James and Joseph (notice it does not say Jesus) to keep her separated from Mary mother of Jesus or Mary Magdela. Therefore, they are not the sons of Joseph and Mary.

Lk 5:9-10 says the other James (killed in Acts 12) and John are the sons of Zebedee; therefore not the sons of Joseph and Mary. Mark 1:19, Mk 4:17, 10:35, Mt 4:21 also say that.
Luke 6:13-16 says Judas is the son of James; therefore also not the son of Joseph and Mary.
John 6:71 says Judas the betrayer is the son of Simon Iscariot; therefore also not the son of Joseph and Mary.
Mt 16:17 says Simon is the son of Jonah; therefore also not the son of Joseph and Mary.

----Quote-----
One more thing, if Mary and Joseph were given the parentship of the Lord, should they not be better examples to him than to intentionally disobey the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply?"
---------------
There was also a law against a woman having more than one spouse. Since Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, perhaps she believed she had the Holy Spirit for a spouse. If you were Joseph, would you want to get it on with the mother of God? I think he would feel unworthy.
There are hints that Mary is prefigured by the ark of the covenant. That is, the ark held the word of God. Mary's womb held The Word of God. 2) When Mary visited Elizabeth (Luke), it is spoken about in the same way as when the ark of the covenant was brought up to Jerusalem. The ark of the covenant was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit in the same way Gabriel says Mary will be. And what would happen to anyone who touched the ark? They would be struck dead. I don't think Joseph would dare touch the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

----Quote-----
Then there is that ossuary with the inscription: James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.
---------------
That still does not say "son of Joseph and Mary". You are reading between the lines.

We're having a discussion about free will at Christianity.com forums:
In the Apocrypha, free will is very clear. This is the reason Martin Luther removed this book from the Bible when it had been canonical since the earliest centuries. Wisdom, Chapter 15:13 "For this man more than any knows that he is sinning, when out of earthen stuff he creates fragile vessels and idols alike."

But there are other verses that support free will.
----------
Jer.2
[28] But where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you, in your time of trouble; for as many as your cities are your gods, O Judah. [29] "Why do you complain against me? You have all rebelled against me, says the LORD. [30] In vain have I smitten your children, they took no correction; your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion. [31] And you, O generation, heed the word of the LORD. Have I been a wilderness to Israel, or a land of thick darkness? Why then do my people say, `We are FREE, we will come no more to thee'? [32] Can a maiden forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people have forgotten me days without number.
-----
Proverbs Chapter 21:7 The oppression of the wicked will sweep them away, because they refuse to do what is right. 8 The way of the culprit is crooked, but the conduct of the innocent is right.

----------------
2 Corinthians, chapter 8
1: We want you to know, brethren, about the grace of God which has been shown in the churches of Macedo'nia,
2: for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of liberality on their part.
3: For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own FREE WILL,
4: begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints --
5: and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.

-------------
Philemon, chapter 1:13: I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel;
14: but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own FREE WILL.
15: Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever,
----
The opposite of free will is free stuborness or hardness of heart. For example---
Mark, chapter 7:[15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
Mark, chapter 10:5: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mark, chapter 16:14: Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.
Matthew, chapter 19:8: He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Matt.15:18-20 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."

Ephesians, chapter 4:18: they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;
Acts 7:51-52 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They put to death those who foretold the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.
---------
The Catholic Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529 AD)[296] and at the Council of Trent (1546 AD).[297]

____Quote_______________

So you can easily see how people come up with various answers. The person might be practising sin, have the wrong motive, not have real faith, not desire God's will, etc.
_______________________________________
So if I don't agree with you, then you accuse me of practising sin, have the wrong motive, not have real faith, not desire God's will, etc. What if I accuse you of the same thing? We still don't know who is right. We've only changed what we disagree about. I've seen numerous times where I've quoted Scripture in these forums that contradicted someone's position, yet they don't see that they aren't obeying the Good Book. Instead they call me wrong. Does that mean they are sinners? No, I think they have been taught wrong and can't take the blinders off. The real question is, "Do we conform our lives to the truth, or do we try and conform the truth to fit our lives?" It doesn't matter what you feel—what matters is the truth. By what authority does one know what is true? We will never have unity until we are together on doctrine.

From the "Apostles Doctrine" forum at Christianity.com:
-----------Quote-----------------
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you [this is the pastoral/elder aspect] , taking the oversight thereof [this is the overseer/bishop aspect]... NEITHER AS BEING LORD'S OVER GOD'S HERITAGE [this is a rebuke to a hierarchy or any attempt to become "clergy"], but being [ex]amples to the flock".

If, indeed, every church had a "bishop" over the elders, then it would have been clearly revealed when Paul gathered together the elders of Ephesus. Scripture, not tradition, provides a pattern for church government and church practice, . ....

Elders are appointed by the Holy Spirit within the local assembly, not by a human bishop outside the local assembly. .....The traditions of men have perverted all these truth,

I don't agree with your interpretation of 1 Pet 5. For starters, you stop at verse 3. Keep going a couple more verses to verse 5. "Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." If 1 Pet 5:5 says "be subject to the presbyters", how can you say it is a rebuke to a hierarchy or clergy? "Do not lord it over those assigned to you" in v. 3 means be a humble servant, which is what priests are -- servants and teachers. And that is not the only place that tells us to obey those in authority over us. Heb 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account,.." It seems like you don't want to admit that the Bible tells us to submit to authority.

Other verses say presbyters/elders (priests) were ordained, preached and taught the flock, administered sacraments. (1 Tim 4:14, 5:22; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:13-15, Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim 2:2;)
Titus 1:5 says "appoint presbyters in every town" means they presbyters were ordained by humans to provide an unbroken succession from the apostles and give authority of the Holy Spirit to teach. Humans were acting on behalf of God in Acts 15:6, "The APOSTLES AND THE PRESBYTERS met together to see about this matter."
Acts 15:23, 28 "This is the letter delivered by them: "The APOSTLES AND THE PRESBYTERS, ...are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: 28 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of US not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, ..." In the Council of Jerusalem, they did not look it up in their Bible (since the New Testament wasn't even written yet). Rather, they remembered what Jesus taught them and acted accordingly. They made decisions that were for MANY churches.
Here are some more verses for you to think about:
1 Tim 6:20 "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you."
1 Cor 12 ... different roles of members of body.

-----------Quote-----------------
and the Nicolaitans were instrumental in bringing in the hierarchy, with its clergy and laity
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the Nicolaitans did what you say they did. I looked them up at this web site:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11067a.htm That web site says, "Nicolaitans were "a sect mentioned in the Apocalypse (ii,6,15) as existing in Ephesus, Pergamus, and other cities of Asia Minor, about the character and existence of which there is little certainty. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., I, xxvi, 3; III, xi, 1) discusses them but adds nothing to the Apocalypse except that "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence." Tertullian refers to them, but apparently knows only what is found in St. John (De Praescrip. xxxiii; Adv. Marc., I, xxix; De Pud., xvii). Hippolytus based his narrative on Irenaeus, though he states that the deacon Nicholas was the author of the heresy and the sect (Philosph., VII, xxvi). Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, iv) exonerates Nicholas, and attributes the doctrine of promiscuity, which the sect claimed to have derived from him, to a malicious distortion of words harmless in themselves."

Nicolaitans probably were hedonists and had nothing to do with establishing the clergy. Acts 1:15-26 shows by replacing Judas that succession was there from the very beginning. "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place." It was humans who did what they had been taught -- ordain men to serve the body of Christ. This authority did not come out of the blue.

More from the forum:
I know your post was not addressed to me, but let me give my slant on this.
----Quote----
well during one part of this dicussion it was brought to my attention for the reasoning why catholics believe what they do. As far as the eucharist and other things like praying to dead people. Instead of praying to Jesus Christ who is alive. (dead people: Saints/mary) And telling me that God says we are to pray to mary because God said we are to pray to angels. And those who do are just following God's word. Those who don't well.. obviously they'd be wrong. Right? Well, I don't believe in praying to dead people who cannot hear me. I believe in praying to God THROUGH Jesus Christ.
------------
Those who have died are alive in Christ and perhaps more alive than we are.
Mk 12:26-27 ... "not God of the dead, but of the living."
Jn 15:1-8 ... vine and its branches.
1 Cor 12:25-27; Rom 12:4-5 ... body of Christ.
Eph 6:18; Rom 15:30; Col 4:3; 1 Thess 1:11 ... intercessory prayer.
Jos 5:14; Dan 8:17; Tob 12:16 ... veneration of angels united with God (Mt 18:10).
1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 ... saints also united with God.
Lk 20-34-38 ... those who died are like angels.
2 Mac 15:11-16 ... deceased Onias and Jeremiah interceded for Jews.
Rev 8:3-4; Jer 15:1 ... saints' intercession.

----Quote-----
most catholics believe anyone who isn't catholic or out right disagree's with their doctrine.. if that's what they call it. They aren't going to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
------------------
That is not what Catholics teach. There are shades of gray. God does not hold people, as long as they are not in a state of serious sin, accountable if they are ignorant or can't be convinced of what the RCC teaches. In this case, ignorance is a good excuse.

----Quote-----
If I don't believe that Jesus' blood and flesh are actually present in my cup of grape juice or in my pita bread.. then I'm sinning against God. It isn't man made or man enforced laws that get you to know God. It's faith. God did away with a lot when Christ died on the cross.
------------------
The Real Presence is not a man-made doctrine. Jesus told us the bread and wine were his body and blood. What IS man-made doctrine is the idea that the bread and wine are merely symbolic. No one taught that until Zwingli. I don't have the authority to change what Jesus said or meant, so why did Zwingli?

----Quote-----
If I never take communion again for as long as I live that will not be a factor in my final judgement. Did I do the work of God? Did I follow Christ's example? Did I bring people to Christ? Not if say.. I drank blood and ate flesh.
------------------
Catholics do not believe in "total depravity" as taught by Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvin. Catholicism believes that, in a mysterious way, man cooperates with the grace which always precedes all good actions. In Catholicism, man's nature still retains some good, although he has a propensity to sin. We need the grace of God to cooperate with him in becoming holy. Catholics believe we are called to a profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship (1 Peter 1:16, 1 Corinthians 1:2). That is why we need to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. If one believes that salvation is an instantaneous event, not a life-long process, then this need for more grace won't make sense. But we believe it because Jesus said that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we will have no life within us. We don't make it up. It's in John 6. Of course it takes a lot of faith to take Jesus at his word about the Real Presence, but then so does a lot of other things.

More from the forum:

In reply to Don5253:
----Quote----
I don't know that much about Martin Luther, but if he is the one that birthed protestantism, I believe that God meant it for a purpose.
------------
God's will is that Christians should be one, not divided. I can't see how division within the body of Christ serves any good purpose. It makes it harder for the world to believe the Father sent Jesus, harder to be brought to perfection, and harder to believe in God's love for us. That is what John 17: 17-23 says. "Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."

If we are to be consecrated to the truth, which truth is that? If we can agree on it, why would non-Christians want to convert? We are a much poorer witness to the revelation of Christ because of the diversity of opinion. Does Christ speak out of different corners of his mouth? And we as a body should speak with one voice in harmony with what the apostles taught. Otherwise, it's like saying Christ is the head of a multi-bodied creature. The answer is not to deny what is going on. The solution is to focus on what Christ would want us to do --- be one.
Christ wanted to save us as a people of God; that is, a flock of his sheep. While he loves us as individuals, there is a communal aspect in his relationship with us as the good shepherd who tends his flock. When a sheep wanders off on his own, he is in danger. In the same way, when believers wander off into thinking they can decide what truth is, they are in danger of getting it wrong. The doctrinal inventions of the reformers are based on the same premise as the ideas of the Jesus Seminar -- "I'll decide for myself what is true".

Division leads to theological relativism ("it may be true for you but not for me") and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel." (I'll decide for my self what is true. I won't listen to anyone else).
The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in most of Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal "freedom," "rights," and "choice" now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society. It is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.

----Quote----
I don't see thousands of different interpretations. I don't even see a hundred.
------------
In one sense, it doesn't matter how manner different interpretations there are. Even one division is one too many. In another sense, the more division, the weaker our witness to the world is. If we have a common goal to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth, wouldn't it be more effective to join together and preach one Gospel? People seems to have decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives because if we can't decide what is true, how can they? About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong! If you think there isn't much diversity, read a book called Separated Brethren. You won't believe the variety of opinions people believe and teach.

----Quote----
I see obvious "teachings of men" coming from the Catholic Church which have been thrown out by protestant churches, which is a good thing.
------------
Are you aware that Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Instantaneous Salvation, Once-Saved-Always Saved, Predestination to hell, rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the authority of the hierarchy, rejection of seven books from the Old Testament, rejection of sacraments, imputed righteousness, rejection of free will, rejection of tradition, etc are inventions of the 1500's that have no roots in apostolic teaching. These things are not authentic, original Christianity. They do not restore Christianity back to what it was originally. These Protestant ideas are the teachings of men - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others. Trace their doctrines back to all the centuries of Christianity. You won't find anyone teaching their ideas.

Many people believe what they have been taught by other Protestants about what the Catholic church teaches without really checking it out for themselves. Without hearing the other side of the story, they assume what they have heard is true, when it's full of myths, distortions, and ignores the Scriptures that support Catholic positions. I see this all the time in this forum. When I quote Scriptures that support Catholic doctrines, I don't hear a "Wow, Catholics have as much right to believe what they do as we do!" response. Mostly, I usually get a "You're wrong!" response, even when the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is more consistent with the whole of Scripture than the other point of view. At least you have something kind to say about Catholics. Thanks!

----Quote----
So, I know that He is using protestant churches to further His kingdom and purposes on this earth
------------

I don't doubt that a minute. I used to listen to a Protestant radio station before there was a Catholic one in town. I sensed the zeal for the faith and the power of the Holy Spirit working there. But I sense the same thing now on the Catholic station. In the pro-life movement, the best allies Catholics have are the Evangelical Protestants. God writes straight with crooked lines. He works with us imperfect humans because we are the only messengers he has. If only we could work shoulder-to-shoulder in other ways to build up God's kingdom, we would be more effective messengers.

----Quote----
But there are some folks who think they and their particular faith are going to be the only ones in Heaven. They are going to be surprised, I do believe.
------------
I'm not saying that God will only save Catholics. We don't teach that. Jesus came to die to save the whole world. God wants every one of his children in heaven. Yet, I think it will be easier if one is following the truth. For example, I hear some people think they don't have to obey the 10 commandments once they are "saved". How can one please God if they are deep in sin? This teaching seems so contrary to the Bible, that I worry about some people being taught the wrong thing. Perhaps you mistake my zeal for the faith and truth as condemning others. I don't think it is their fault if they have been taught wrong. Gal 1:9 says what will happen to those who teach a Gospel other than the one Paul taught. I leave that to the judgement of God.

More from the forum:

------Quote----
I do believe you put yourself in a difficult position regarding John 6 though. Throughout the bible, God has revealed things to us with a great economy of words. A tremendous amount of wisdom is contained in a few books and Jesus never wasted His words. If you take your position however, then one has to believe that Jesus said a lot of unecessary and confusing things in John 6. I find that very difficult to reconcile and wonder how you can be comfortable with such an understanding?
------------

Have you ever noticed how the apostles thought Jesus was talking figuratively when he spoke about his upcoming death/resurrection? On the road to Emmaus, they found out that the prophesies were literal, not figurative. OTOH, the blind man knew Jesus was the Messiah when he called him Son of David. Isn't it odd that the blind man could see what people with eyes could not see?

Those of us who believe in the Real Presence have to be like the blind man and see with the eyes of faith, not our own senses when we look at the bread and wine. I would be uncomfortable believing the Eucharist is figurative when Jesus said it was not, especially since he said it multiple times with a "Amen, Amen" verse in there in John 6.

Re: Will the Real Believers/Saints Please Identify Yourselves? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dont read everybody elses Ideas about God or spiritual life, read the Bible and God will teach you the truth.

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

I'm glad you care so much about the truth, but I don't think reinventing the wheel is the way to know truth. I think we can all benefit from reading other's ideas, but to much open-mindedness can have pitfalls. It's like the old joke:

"So your sister got fired’

"Yes. But she was going to leave anyway. Her boss is so conceited---he thinks the words can only be spelled his way."

There isn't a different truth for each person. There is one truth that is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. What is true for one person is true for everybody. Some people want to have their own "spelling rules" when it comes to faith. They want to make them up as they go. Many heresies have started this way. Not everyone is a Biblical expert enough to decide for themselves because Scripture is not self-interpreting.
2 Pet 1:20 "there is no prophesy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation... 2 Pet 3:15 "as our beloved brother Paul...wrote to you, ...In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."
So I think reading Scripture makes one complete and holy, but it is not a good way to find out what doctrine should be. That should be left up to authority. 1 Pet 5:5 "be subject to the presbyters."

I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart. I find freedom in knowing the truth He revealed and in being His disciple. I made a life-long commitment to serve Him however He leads me. I happen to believe I can be helped to know what that is by listening to the teaching of His church.

More from the forum:
Re: Where in the Bible does it say Abortion is wrong?

Here is a good article on this:

http://www. catholic .com/library/Abortion.asp This link works if you take out the spaces. I found this:

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

Actually, this passage can also be interpreted as "if there is injury to the woman (not the fetus), you are the take life for life..." This interpretation is used by the pro-choice camp. So it really comes down to what the Tradition from the early church fathers taught,which is very pro-life. Without the teaching from the Tradition, one can explain away most of the Scriptures. Though I am very pro-life, I can see how they can write off the pro-life position if it comes from Scripture alone. It's there in principle if one wants to believe abortion is wrong. People tend to see what they want to see though.
I would love to know how the pro-choice camp finds Scripture to support abortion. I've heard it is along the lines of "don't be judgemental". I want to be prepared to answer them.
------
Joke:
“So your sister got fired’

“Yes. But she was going to leave anyway. Her boss is so conceited---he thinks the words can only be spelled his way.

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses? [Reply to Lonely_Road_of_Faith2003]

If you need to debate with Jehovah's Witnesses, here is a good web site:

http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html

They are into predicting the Second Coming which the Watch tower said would happen in 1914. When it didn't happen, they said Jesus came back "invisibly" even though Mt 24:27-30 says everyone would be able to see Jesus come back and Jesus said that we know not the day or the hour when he would come back.
They say only 144,000 will go to heaven (This is a big part of their beliefs.
)when Rev 7:1 talks about seeing the earth, land or sea and trees then says in v. 4 about the 144,000. The multitude no one can count (v. 9) are standing before the throne and before the Lamb. So the JWs have got it backward about the number who will go to heaven. Since their "translation" is so warped, you have to challenge them about the authority of the Watchtower saying things that are not true. It's too hard to go after doctrinal issues like the Trinity with them, though Thomas' statement to Jesus about being "My Lord and My God" sometimes works.

More from the Tradition forum:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While there are clearly many local assemblies of believers all over this planet, the CHURCH is actually a heavenly entity.

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

While some people believe the church is invisible, I don't think Scripture agrees with that. There are too many places where a visible church on earth is doing what God commissioned them to do--spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth. That couldn't happen in one lifetime, so He established His church to carry on His work and gave it authority to act for Him. Look at these:
Eph 5:25-26 ... Christ loved the Church.
1 Tim 3:15 ... church is pillar/foundation of truth.
Mt 16:18; 20:20 ... Christ protects Church.
Heb 13:17 ... obey your leaders.
1 Pet 5:5 be subject to the presbyters.
Mt 18:17-18 ... church as final authority.
1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20 ... excommunication.

More from the forum:

-----Quote-----
I've been trying to decide whether or not I believe that Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins and whether the Bible really is the word of God but I keep changing my mind. A lot of the for-arguments seems to revolve around showing that the bible has predicted countless events in history but when I examine the passages that these predictions supposedly come from I find them so vague and ambiguous that they don't really do much to convince me.

On the other hand, arguments concerning how the bible was put together, whether it was Ishmael or Isaac that Abraham was told to sacrifice, and the questionable set of morals depicted within the 66 books all point quite strongly towards a bible that is man-made and erroneous. http://www.truthbeknown.com/bible.htm

I'm also confused as to why it's fair that someone should be punished (sent to hell) for not putting their faith in Jesus. If God gave us free will to make our own decisions then why are we then penalised for not making the decisions that God wants? From what I've read I get the impression that you need to have complete faith in Jesus in order to be saved but how can I get rid of my doubts when my God-given ability to reason does not provide the tools necessary for me to prove His own existence?

It may sound like I've made up my mind already but I can't get rid of the thought that the Bible may be true after all and that if it is I'm in trouble. I want to believe but I'm finding it very difficult... any advice as to what to do would be appreciated.
------------------
I would recommend a book called The Case For Christ as a good source that shows the Bible is what it says and that it is trustworthy.

God works both through the Holy Spirit and through humans so I wouldn't discount the fact that humans wrote, compiled, translated, preserved and distributed the Bible. If God wants to get through to us, He has to do it through humans and I believe God loves us so much that He will do what it takes to make a relationship with him. The surest way to know that the New Testament is true is that for three centuries people were willing to burn at the stake rather than burn a pinch of incense to Caesar and deny what they believed to be truth. Why would they do that? They would be fools to die for a lie. As CS Lewis said, Jesus is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. When Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and My God", Jesus did not laugh at him; which I think he would have done had it not been true.

As for sent to hell for not putting their faith in Jesus, 1 John 2:2 says that Jesus "is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world." That seems to conflict with "no one comes to the Father except through me", I think it means that all who are saved are saved through the death/resurrection of Christ.
God knows who will be saved and who won't be, but God doesn't create people for hell, rather people choose it for themselves and if people are determined to go there, He allows them to. That is what is called free will. God gives us the grace to choose good, but some people don't cooperate. (Acts 7:51) As I understand it, God knows everything that we do for all time, as the concept of time doesn't exist for Him. He sees where our will takes us, and even if it takes us to eternal separation from Him, and wills our creation anyway. Essentially, we choose evil and choose to run away from His graces, but God will lovingly take us back if we turn to him with a contrite heart.

Things don't come into existence out of nowhere. There has to be a cause. But how did the first thing get created? There has to be an uncreated being that caused the first thing to be created? Who made the Big Bang go bang? Who made the matter/energy that was involved in the Big Bang? How did a world that is so perfectly designed happen by accident? Every design must have a designer.

A classic writer on this topic is at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager? If a Christian dies and finds out that there is no heaven or hell, nothing is lost. He/she has lived a moral life that helped him/her to get along with other humans. But if an atheist dies and finds out there really is a hell, he/she is in a ton of trouble. A betting man always makes the safest wager, so it's a good idea to believe in hell just in case if for no other good reason.

Have you ever asked for the gift of faith? It's something God wants you to have, so if you ask, I'm sure he will show you somehow.

As for me, I came to believe that I could not save myself from myself and that I needed the help of someone more powerful than any human. I was drawn to God's love for me that filled the deepest yearning of my soul and brought me out of the pit I was in. It all started making sense after that.

More from the forum:
There are two ways of looking at the supposed apostacy of the Catholic Church.
At Pentacost, Peter acted as spokesman for the apostles and taught with authority. In Acts 15, Peter made a decision about how Gentiles should act. In 96 AD, Clement of Rome settles a dispute in the Corinthian church by exercising his papal authority as successor of Peter while St. John is still alive.
In 180 AD, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, stated that the teaching and tradition of the Roman See was the standard for belief.

You say it happened when the pope started asserting authority. In that case these events were decided by an apostate church:

Between 244 and 383, the Catholic Church contended with numerous heresies -- Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Bogomils, Catharis and Albigenses, Montanists, Novatian, Arianism, and Donatism. Read what these heresies were about and decide if the Catholic church decided them correctly. Where were the Evangelical writers speaking out against these heresies? You say, "The Evangelical Protestant doctrines are not a recent invention! They are a restoration of biblical doctrines." If so, why are there no writings before the 1500's that support these doctrines? Monophytism, Waldenses, modernism heresis came later. Do you agree the RCC decided them correctly or do you identify with the heretics?

370-405 The Catholic Church decided what books were inspired by God, and put them into one book, "The Bible". The list of the 73 inspired books, as we have them today in the Catholic Bible, was first compiled by St. Athanasius (c.297-373). This list was confirmed by the Council of Hippo (393), Council of Carthage (397) both in North Africa (St. Augustine was active in both councils), Pope Innocent I (405), and the Council of Trent (1545-63).

If an apostate church defined the extra-biblical doctrine of the Trinity and decided which books are in the Bible, then the Protestants have inherited the doctrines and writings of an apostate church. That is what the Mormons say.

Then there is the other way of looking at things:

Despite that about 30 of the first 34 popes were martyred for the faith, they kept appointing popes. If you knew it was a death sentence to be elected pope, wouldn't you have to have a very good reason for taking the job? Perhaps the popes have done exactly what Jesus told them to do. Perhaps they felt they would be disobeying the Lord if there were no pope. If they thought they were doing the right thing, who are we to judge them?

If you accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the table of contents of the Bible, don't you have to admit the Catholic Church was not apostate at the point when the pope asserted authority; that is, when Peter spoke at Pentacost? If you truncate all the traditions, you'd have to truncate the Trinity and the Bible's table of contents too.

If 75% of all Christians are not Protestant and do believe Christ gave authority to the popes, doesn't that tell you that Protestants are the minority opinion? Isn't it a bit brash for the late-comers to Christianity to tell the others that they have had it all wrong from the beginning? If one is to call it a Reformation, wouldn't that mean you clean up the sinful stuff and leave the basic structure alone? If you re-invent it, shouldn't one call it something other than Christianity because it is not the same as what it started out to be.

Have you ever read the writings of these people? See for yourself whether they sound like people who did not have the Holy Spirit in them. St. Patrick (432 AD), St. Benedict, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Boniface, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Claire, Thomas a Kempis, who wrote the "Imitation of Christ", St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), St. Vincent de Paul (1581-1660) and St. Jeanne de Chantal (1572-1644) and countless others. All of these people believed in the authority of the pope. Christianity would not be what it is today without them.
Read more about the history of the Catholic Church at http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/c1.htm

More from the forum:
----Quote---
I know that this wasn't written to me, but with all due respect, have you read any of the Eastern Orthodox threads on this board? On how the RCC apostatized from the "True Church." This was the dicotomy that I was referring to earlier. Almost everyone believe that they belong to the only true church. Is this the same church that dug up Wycliff's bones and burned them seventy-five years after he was dead???? To follow the presbyters as you would want, you would have the Catholic's version of the spiritual descendants of the Apostles molesting children with the Arch-Bishop (another non-biblical term) covering it up.
-------
The Eastern Orthodox have told their side of the story about how the RCC apostatized, but you probably haven't heard the RCC side of the story. One of the issues is the phase about the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father AND THE SON" in the Nicene Creed. The EO object to the AND THE SON part. Most Protestants subscribe to the AND THE SON part. You inherited that from the RCC. There were a few other less important reasons, but for the most part, we are very similar in our doctrines. I hope the rift will be settled someday. JP 2 has worked on it a lot, but nationalism and grudges get in the way.

I've heard they burned Wycliff's bones to keep Protestants from making relics of them. Some of his ideas were later picked up by Hus and Martin Luther, I think.

No matter how sinful priests are as individuals it does not give anyone the right to ignore their authority. Anyone who does that elects themselves Pope. Some liberal bishops weren't following the rules and that is how the homosexuals in the priesthood crisis started. In more conservative dioceses, there hasn't been a problem. They never should have been ordained. The Boy Scout's rules are right about homosexuals, IMHO.

----Quote---
Does you organization have Bishops married to only one wife? Who are the deaconess in your congregations? Why were priests allowed to be married and then prohibited a thousand years later? Didn't have it right the first time?
-------
Celibacy was started as a reform measure to stop nepotism. Paul recommended it so that a man could focus on serving God and not worry about the needs of his wife.
Mt 19:12 eunuchs for the kingdom; 1 Cor 7:7-9 ... Paul unmarried. 1 Cor 7:32,33 ... celibacy.
If you were aware of how much women do in the church, you would see there is no need for deaconesses. The nuns and lay women have a lot of clout.
----Quote---
How can a baby repent and be baptized?
-------
Baptism washs away original sin, not actual sin. "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them" Col 2:11-12 says circumcision (normally performed on infants c.f. Gen 17:12) was replaced by baptism.

----Quote---
What scripture verse is the rosary based on?
-------
Hail Mary's (Ave's) come from Lk 1:28 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" Lk 1:42 "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! Also included are the Apostles’ Creed (Credo), one Our Father (the Pater Noster or the Lord’s Prayer), one Glory Be (Gloria Patri).

The Rosary is a meditative prayer on 20 events in Jesus' life. It's a great, but totally optional, way to chill out if one does it right. See http://www. catholic .com/library/Rosary.asp for more info. Take out the spaces in the URL.

----Quote---
I believe in Bishops (overseers), Elders, Deaconess, etc. In all of the offices of the New Testament. I believe that Jesus Christ loved the Church so much that he died for her. I don't believe that the Church is limited to your particular brand of worship.
-------
I'm only trying to point out the fullness of truth. Private interpretation of scripture and sola scriptura are not scriptural. I thought folks would want to know that.

----Quote---
Your assumption that you can think for other people who do not agree with you is a little more than brash. Is someone telling you how you think Catholicism is? I can try it if you wish, but it isn't really isn't my style.
-------
When someone calls the RCC a pagan religion, I feel obligated to defend it. Some folks believe all kinds of things that aren't true. I just want to point out the assumptions.

Privacy and Morals: Who Decides?
Cal Thomas writes about moral dominoes
----
From the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at christianity.com
In Reply to Ephesians432
It will take a long, off-topic reply to answer you, so please bear with me.
-----
No, Betty, we don't accept your doctrine of the Eucharist because the Catholic church has apostasized from the teachings of the apostles to such an extreme that it is like a pagan religion. The only thing you seem to have going for you is a belief in the Triune God.
-----
Are you aware that the church you say is apostasized is the one that defined the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea? The Arians were saying Jesus was a created being and therefore was not really God in the same sense as the Father is God. Without the authority of Roman popes, the Arian heresy would have won out. Four of the five patriarchs of the day were teaching Arian doctrines for centuries. Only Rome held on to the doctrine of the Trinity as Christians know it today. BTW, you can't really prove the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture. It is an extra-biblical tradition and so is monogamy. The Trinity is in the Bible only by inference and hints, but there is no place that says Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, has two natures, divine and human, with the divine nature uncreated and the human nature 2000 years old. Without this extra-biblical tradition of the Trinity, no one has room to criticize Jehovah Witnesses, who are Arians.

Have you ever read the writings of the early church fathers? All of them consistently teach Catholic doctrines. None of them teach Evangelical Protestant views. How do you explain the absence of writings from the Evangelical side when there are a ton of Catholic writings that refuted heresy? If Evangelical Protestant writers existed, why didn't they speak out against these heresies? Where were the Evangelical Protestants pointing out that the Trinity is an extra-biblical tradition and is not binding on believers? The Arians did. The only explaination is that Evangelical Protestant doctrines are a recent invention that have no apostolic roots.

How can you explain the miracles that have happened in every century of Christianity? Would God have let an apostate church have such a powerful witness to His power? If the Catholic church is an apostate church, have the gates of hell prevailed against it (Mt 16)? Would an apostate church do a good job of deciding what books belong in the Bible? If the Catholic church is an apostate church, how do you know that all the books that are there are supposed to be there? Is there any place in Scripture that says what books should comprise the Bible? Or was the Table of Contents divinely revealed like the Koran?

Exactly in what year did this apostacy take place? Who did it? Where did it happen? I don't think you can make that charge without backing it up with the details. Especially when that is not what the Western Civilization history course I took in college said. Instead, you find a church that compiled, copied, translated, and distributed the Bible intact for 14 centuries before the invention of the printing press. Yes, there were corrupt people leading it at times, but that doesn't mean the teachings became corrupt or that people had the right to rebel against its authority.

-----Q----
Catholics try to limit the power of the Holy Spirit and make people dependant upon an organization instead of the salvation that is available in Jesus Christ. The Catholic church has no authority. The believer has authority---we are a royal priesthood, and children of the most high God.
-------
This is another example of dicotomous thinking --- Jesus vs. the Church, not Jesus and His Church. Christ founded his church on Peter and the apostles. There is not only a royal priesthood of believers, but also the office of bishop (overseer), presbyter, and deacons in Scripture. There was a priesthood of believers in the OT, but they also had a Levite priesthood. Bloody sacrifices were abolished in the NT, but the priesthood was not. It was transformed. Where are your bishops, presbyters, and deacons? Scripture is very clear they existed from the very beginning. It is an extra-biblical, Evangelical tradition that priests and the church are not necessary.
I don't believe in proof-texting, but for your sake, here is the proof:
Eph 5:25-26 ... Christ loved the Church.
1 Tim 3:15 ... church is pillar/foundation of truth.
Mt 16:18; 20:20 ... Christ protects Church.
Mt 18:17-18 ... church as final authority.
Mt 23:2 ... Pharisees succeeded Moses (seat of Moses).
John 20:20- As the Father has sent me, so I send you.
Heb 13:17 ... obey your leaders and defer to them
1 Peter 5:5 be subject to the presbyters.
1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20 ... excommunication.
Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5 ...unbroken succession.
Acts 15:6,23; 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:13-15 ... presbyters/elders (priests) were ordained, preached and taught the flock, administered sacraments.

I hope you don't take all these questions as attacking you. That is not what I mean to do. I am asking them to challenge you to think about what you believe and not assume anything. It is in the spirit of Christian charity that I point out your assumptions.

Joke Day

There were two Catholic boys, Timothy Murphy and Secola Antonio, whose lives paralleled each other in amazing ways.

In the same year Timothy was born in Ireland, Secola was born in Italy.

Faithfully they attended parochial school from kindergarten through senior year in high school.

They took their vows to enter the priesthood early in college and, upon graduation became priests.

Their careers had come to amaze the world, but it was generally acknowledged that Secola was just a cut above Timothy in all respects.

Their rise through the ranks of bishop, archbishop and finally cardinal was meteoric to say the least, and the Catholic world knew that when the present Pope died, it would either be one of the two who would become the next pope.

In time the pope did die, and the College of Cardinals went to work.

In less time than anyone had expected, white smoke rose from the chimney and the world waited to see whom they had chosen.

The world, Catholic, Protestant and secular were surprised to learn that Timothy Murphy had been elected pope!

Secola Antonio was beyond surprise. He was devastated, because even with all of Timothy's gifts, Secola knew he was the better qualified.

With gall that shocked the Cardinals, Secola asked for a private session with them in which he candidly asked, "Why Timothy?"

After a long silence, an old cardinal took pity on the bewildered man and rose to reply. "We knew you were the better of the two, but we just could not bear the thought of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church being called "Pope Secola."

From the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at christianity.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But to compare what I believe to the Catholic church. I know that their [beliefs] being so contrast to my own beliefs, there is something foundationally missing in the church. I'm not sure where it started but, I honestly am afraid for the devout catholic people I know.


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



Have you ever considered that the Protestant doctrines you have been taught are incomplete or distorted? By what authority do you believe them? Have you traced these doctrines back to see if they were believed all throughout the 2000 years of Christianity? If the audit trail of a doctrine disappears before 1500, then it is not what the apostles taught. If it is not what the apostles taught, then it is not authentic, historic Christianity. It is a man-made, invented, pulled-from-air tradition that is not what the writer of Scripture meant.

Have you ever written or said something that was totally misinterpreted because someone had their own agenda? People putting words in your mouth that you did not mean to say? That is what is going on here. The same words can mean different things to different people, but that does not mean both are correct or what was intended. Only one meaning is the one intended. But the only way to know that 2000 years later is to trust the authority Christ established - his Church founded on the rock of Peter.

I think the reason this forum on the Eucharist is so hot is that if Protestants admit Catholics are right about the Eucharist, then there would have to be a priesthood to consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, there would have to be bishops to ordain the priests and there would have to be the office of Pope to teach the bishops and lead the flock. Such submission to authority is intolerable to most Protestants who want to place their own opinion above the teaching authority of the church. They would have to admit that God chose to use the church as a channel of grace to help us on the journey to salvation, and therefore salvation is not instantaneous. If salvation is not instantaneous, they would have to cooperate with God's grace and that is too much work.

Perhaps you have noticed how the Catholics quote Scripture in this forum to back up their debates and show how some are ignoring the other point of view. But it seems that no matter how Scriptural Catholic beliefs are, there is no openness in this forum to admitting Catholics have as much Scriptural evidence to support their beliefs as Protestants do. It's frustrating to see this lack of openness. It's like talking to someone who keeps saying, "A cake is made of flour." when they are not open to hearing that a cake is made of other ingredients too. "A cake is made of flour" is a true statement, but it is incomplete and therefore, without the other ingredients, will not make a cake. The same is true if someone says "I have Jesus and that is all I need. I don't need a church or Eucharist or anything else." This attitude ignores all the places that Jesus said we need other things to be his disciple, like "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." in John 6. If all the Scripture Protestants will listen to is John 3:16, then what is the rest of the Bible for?

I don't think you have to worry about sincere, devout Catholics because we have the fullness of truth and are willing to be "subject to our presbyters" (1Pet 5:5) because we know how to know what is truth. 1 Timothy 3:14:15 "I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Perhaps my post does not sound charitable, but I am getting to feeling that I can't break through the "Catholics are wrong, we are the only ones right" attitude out here. I wonder if there is any openness to truth. Such disunity in the Body of Christ distresses me. Christ has only one Body and I want it to be together again. I would be happy to see someone admitting Catholics have as much Scriptural evidence to support their beliefs as Protestants do. At least I would feel heard.

God bless,

Betty G.

from the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at christianity.com

Tell One
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are more things in your posts than I can possibly answer, but I feel compelled to make some more off-topic remarks.

Confession of sins was not invented by a pope. John 20:20-23

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

-----Q---
Having failed to read almost five hundred posts, I am not familiar with the statement you are refering too. However, in the King James Version, NIV, NASB and Nestle-Aland 24, the above passage does not equate to confession, but to forgiveness.
------

In John 20:20-23, Jesus says, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." How would the priests, who have received their authority from the apostles, be able to decide whether to forgive a sin if they do not hear the confession?
-Q--
If you want to "dichomize" Christianity into Protestantism or Catholicism or Orthodoxism, that is your perogative.
----
The dichotomies I was thinking about are not between denominaitons. Protestantism is "either-or," whereas Catholicism takes a "both-and" approach. Examples follow:

Protestantism pits the Word (the Bible, preaching) against sacraments.
Protestantism sets up inner devotion and piety against the Liturgy.
Protestantism opposes spontaneous worship to form prayers.
Protestantism separates the Bible from the Church.
Protestantism creates the false dichotomy of Bible vs. Tradition.
Protetantism pits Tradition against the Holy Spirit.
Protestantism considers Church authority and individual liberty and conscience contradictory.

Pope Innocent III(circa 1160-1216), Pope Boniface VIII(1235-1303), Pope Eugene IV(1388-1447) all lived before Christianity was divided into denominations. For them to say there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is the same as saying there is no salvation outside Christianity. Para 16 of Lumen Gentium says "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church." It is trying to say God, who makes the rules, could possibly make exceptions for those who are not culpable because of their ignorance. All men who are saved are saved through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is more difficult for non-Christians to be saved, but we leave that up to the mercy of God.

http://www. catholic .com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp explains what the early church fathers taught. Take out the spaces in the URL.

Feeneyites are considered by the RCC to be in error. They are radical traditionalists that think the pre-reformation writings mean what you are contending they mean, but is not what the RCC means. http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1203.htm

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Jesus gave Peter the keys (Mt 16). The Pope does not change doctrine, but he does have the power to bind & loose; which means he has the power to make rules that guide his flock to Christ. He is the "servant of the servants of God". Luke 22:29- "It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

The phenomenon called The Sixties — the whirlwind in which the post-conciliar Church found itself caught —was relentlessly reductionistic, even to the point of cynicism, in that no institution was conceded to have any genuine transcendental purpose. Rather every such institution — government, university, family, church, corporation — was defined merely as a conspiracy of privileged people aiming to subjugate others, all claims of idealism a mere cloak for power. I hope one of these days our society will get over this fad and get back to a more traditional view of authority.

Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X are expressing the view that if Mary had not said "yes", we would not have had a Savior. In that sense, we owe her a debt of gratitude for her obedience. "You sit crowned as Queen" comes from Rev 12. I consider these writings as a bit sentimental and subjective, not doctrine.
-----Q---
Earlier you referred to the Ten Commandments as "Natural Laws," but didn't care to elaborate on the terminology. Will you please explain how the Ten Commandments are "Natural Laws?"
------
Jeremiah 31:33
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD . "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:16 echo this.
Do the RCC observe a Seventh Day Sabbath? I can go to Mass 364 days a year. Any Mass after 4 pm on Saturday fulfills the Sunday obligation.
--Q--
I will address this in another post, if you please. For starters, look up the word for "saved" in I Peter 3:20. I'll be back regarding the rest of this post.
-----
That's another one of the dichotomies I was thinking about. Perhaps you're thinking salvation is a past tense event and ignoring the "both/and" part: I am saved (1Pet 3:20), I am being saved (1 Cor 15. 2), I hope to be saved on the last day (2 Pet 1:10-11, 2 Pet 3:10-14). 1 Cor 15. 2: "[The Gospel] through which you are BEING saved." To say salvation is a past event ignores the full truth and truncates what Scripture into a simplistic, instantaneous method. This is NOT what historic Christianity taught before the 1500's. I prefer to follow what the apostles taught.

from the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at christianity.com

Quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't receive everlasting life by drinking blood!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus would never command us to do something that is sinful, so his command in John 6 shows he is doing something brand new; a new way of receiving his everlasting life. So it is not cannabalism to drink blood." Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." As Gentiles, we are not bound to obey the Mosaic law; only the 10 commandments apply.

from the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at christianity.com

Quote---------------
But, what they did talk about which struck me as odd ( and i didn't know about this) is the catholic church refuses to let a person take part in communion if they'd been divorced and remarried. Because if the church/priest doesn't give them an annulment or they don't provide adequate proof that they deserve an annulment then they are not allowed to partake in the seven sacriments. ( I believe I said that right) Because in the churches eyes, that person or people are living in sin. Since the church doesn't recognize divorce, to them the person or persons were never divorced and his or her new marriage is not legal to them so that person is technically (in the churches eyes) not remarried. And living with another person all this equals adultry.
-------------------
Matthew 19: 3 "Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).

1 Corinthians 11:26 "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. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. "

It is a kindness to tell someone what God expects of them. It seems Catholics are holding fast to what Scripture says, while many denominations have caved on this issue and permit divorce for any reason. The circumstances of the marriage determine whether God joined the couple together or whether they were not sacramentally married. For example, one of the conditions for a marriage to be sacramental is full consent to the marriage on the wedding day. A shotgun wedding means there was not full consent, so the marriage was probably not sacramental. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applies (1 Cor. 7:12–15). If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there was no marriage before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.

If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).

This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ. As Paul said, "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10).

Quote----------------------
SO! since the church looks down on this womans sins and no matter what she does to ask forgiveness for the divorce or what have you. The priest will not forgive it, will not let her ...partake in communion thus her chances of entering into the Kingdom has diminished. ... it is directly a violation of the Bible for people to be "forgiven" by a priest.
----------
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." The priest is acting in the person of Christ when he speaks the words of absolution. He is not doing it under his own power but by the authority given him by ordination. The Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).

Quote-----------------
Not only that but going through Mary ... when Christ said to get to the Father by Him(Jesus). Not by her mary or her ruth. or him James. Him Jesus.
-----------
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven, and that includes Mary, and ask them to pray with us. Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!"

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

Quote----------
And again the hail mary's, ( aside from the praying to mary that I believe is a direct violation of scripture) the repetitive prayers.
-------------
In Mt 6:7 Jesus warns us not to use "vain repetitions" like the Pagans do. I have heard this explained as Jesus meant prayers like this were vain because the pagan gods do not exist.

The pagans would continuously repeat their requests to their gods over and over again sometimes mutilating themsleves in the process (remember Elijah and the duel between him and the priests of Baal? 1Kings 18:21ff). They did this to get the attention of their gods because in their theology, the gods might not be listening and you had to get their attention. On the other hand, Jesus taught us that his Father was always listening and in fact knew what we needed before we did. Indeed the repetitions were ultimately in vain because the pagan gods did not exist. But what Jesus was criticizing was the theology of divine indifference to the fate of men.

Each decade of the rosary is devoted to a mystery regarding the life of Jesus or his mother. The rosary is a meditative prayer, NOT a prayer of petition per se. The repetition is not because we think God is not listening to us but because we may not be listening to Him. We are trying to ponder more deeply the words of Scripture on who Mary was and what her significance is in the order of salvation. The repetion is for our benefit, not God's.

I copied some of this from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/sippo/arts2.html and catholic.com
Many people believe a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic Church and have never heard the other side of the story. I think you might be surprised to find just how Scripturally based the Catholic Church is. There are many instances where Catholics are upholding Bible teaching that others have caved on or think are just figurative. Some people think we are anti-divorce, but I see that as being pro-family. I wonder if the current secular trend to divorce will be reversed in future generations because we realize how hurtful it is for children? I wonder how far from the Bible teaching things will get before we realize we've gone too far. I like the fact that the Catholic Church does not bow to popular fads like divorce.
That's my two cents worth.
Betty

More from the Once Saved, Always Saved debate on the Eucharist at Christianity.com:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NEW CREATION which is Christ in you, can not sin, it is His life within you... The old nature still sins, that's what it does, there is nothing good in the old man, and he is already condemned, you're not going to take him with you when the Lord changes these vile bodies of ours, and fashions them like unto His glorious body.

We had absolutely NOTHING GOOD TO OFFER up to GOD, nothing! Jesus Christ OFFERED HIMSELF to GOD for us, and that is why the ONLY thing that you and I can do is receive the free gift that is eternal life in Him.

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



NewinChrist,

I strongly disagree with your assertion that mankind is depraved. We are deprived of grace, and through our free will, we do continue to sin. How can you say we "can not sin"? Have you done any scientific research in this? It would seem then the only people in jail would be non-Christians, but I think we both know that is not true. Get real!

1 Jn 1:6 If we say, "We have fellowship with him," while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." The apostle John is including himself in the "we" he writes about. Anyone who says he does not sin, is making Christ a liar. However, He does clean us from sin, and not just cover over the sin nature. We indeed have much to offer God.

2 Peter 1:4-10

Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who lacks them is blind and shortsighted, forgetful of the cleansing of his past sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your call and election firm, for, in doing so, you will never stumble." How can we partake of the divine nature here on earth if we have nothing good to offer? Why do we need to make our call and election firm if it is firm already? We are cleansed from PAST sins, not future.

1 Peter 2:5

you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Again, we have nothing good to offer?

Revelation 8:3

Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne". Again, we have nothing good to offer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from the debate on the Eucharist at Christianity.com:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I don't believe that God keeps anything secret. If He intended for us to believe it was actual flesh then it would be clear as daylight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God did reveal clear as daylight. It's in John 6, as has been quoted numerous times in this forum. I wonder how much more clearly Jesus would have had to say it to make it clear to you. It seems very clear to me. It takes a lot faith to believe it, true, but Jesus said it clearly enough for those who are open to the truth. Are you open to the possibility that Jesus really meant what he clearly said?

"Nothing is impossible with God" as Luke says. God is omnipresent, so he is present in every square millimeter of the universe. He is outside time and space, so he can be everywhere. Why would it be impossible for him to be in a piece of bread too? Who has the power to evict God from the bread and wine? Catholics believe God is present in a special way in the bread and wine, but can you at least believe He is present in the bread and wine in the same way He is present in the universe? If God can be present in the ordinary way of omnipresence, can't He also be present in a special way that He promised He would be?

While reading the passion narrative, I keep thinking of the Shroud of Turin exhibit at Our Lady of the Snows in Belleville, Il. www.snows.org. I can visualize the whip and the blood stains on the back of the cloth. I see the crown of thorns and the blood stains on the cloth. I can see the nails and the holes in the wrist. I realize so much more clearly how much Jesus suffered for me. This Good Friday will be more real for me than ever.

The exhibit will start to travel to other places after May 11. I hope you get a chance to see it. If not, check out www.shroud.org
Happy Easter to all.

In some ways, all religions follow the natural law as expressed in the 10 commandments (keeping holy the sabbath is not a natural law though). But I see many differences:

Buddists believe there is no God and you have to save yourself.

Hindus believe any God will do and you have to keep being reincarnated till you get it right.

Islam believes God created the world, but abandoned us. He is a master and we are slaves. We have to work hard to get to heaven.

Jews believe God created the world, and that he loves us.

Christians believe God created the world and that he loves us so much He sent His son to save us.

Catholic Christians believe God created the world and he loves us so much He sent His son to save us. He loves us so much that Jesus remains with us in the flesh to give himself to us through the Eucharist.

Which view of God do you want to believe?

Happy Holy Thursday!
Rev. William G. Most has a great article on the Mass at:
Why the Mass?
"It would be good for us to take some moments before each Mass to look back asking: What have I done since the previous Mass in obeying? If I have done well, I can join it to His obedience, so that it all may as it were melt into the offering of the whole Christ, Head and members. If I have done some things poorly, apologies are in order. I could look ahead too to the time shortly to come after the Mass. At times I may see something in which I know what the will of the Father is for me. Then: Do I really mean to obey? If not, this is no place for me. But if yes, the past and future obedience can focus into the one eternal moment of the double consecration. "

Brothers of Jesus?

Some people claim that Jesus had brothers, which means his mother, Mary, did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth. To support this, they quote Mk 6:17 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”

Let’s look at what the rest of the Bible can tell us about these “brothers” of Jesus. James and Joses and Judas and Simon were fathered by other men, not Joseph, so they can't be children of Mary.

The verses are listed at http://www.geocities.com/bettyg51/BrothersJesus.htm

Did you know?
On Passover, Jews put three pieces of matzo in a small pouch. They pull out the middle one and break it, then hide it. To me, the three breads represent the Trinity. The middle one represents the Son, who was broken and then hidden in the tomb. Most Jews don't know why they do this or what it represents, so if you have Jewish friends, tell them. I think it is a beautiful prophesy of Jesus' death on the cross right in this ancient ritual.

My debate on the forums at christianity.com continues. I quote the arguments I am refuting. Here's how it's going:
----Quote----
Not one word of a ritual performed by a new order of priests is mentioned in scripture. I refuse to believe that bread that can rot is mysteriously transformed into the literal Body of Christ. No ritual such as performed by the various sects of the Catholic churches is recorded in scripture.
-----End Quote------
The Eucharist is not just a symbolic memorial. If Jesus, as in Heb 7:16, is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek, then he continues to offer the bread and wine like Melchizadek did. It would be shortchanging the functions of Jesus if the Eucharist is not an offering because that is what high priests do.

----Quote----
Not one word of a ritual performed by a new order of priests is mentioned in scripture.
-----End Quote------
Heb 7:16 says Jesus is a high priest, but not by physical descent. That is, Jesus restored the priesthood to the way it was before Moses - non-hereditary. The Levitical priesthood is replaced, not abolished. The priesthood continued after Jesus. Titus 1:5 "appoint presbyters in every town..". These priests stand in the place of Jesus at the Mass. The Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Notice that it says Jesus IS a high priest, not WAS a high priest. The priesthood and offering of Jesus continues to this day.

Heb 7:25 Therefore he is able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them. Where in Scripture does it say we can only approach God spiritually and not by physically receiving his body? "Is not the bread we eat a participation in the body of Christ?" John 6 "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you." The Passover sacrifices of the old covenant had to be eaten, and so does the Lamb of God. However, the Lamb of God is able to save us through this sacrifice.

----Quote----
One time sacrifice. This sacrifice is not perpetuated on Catholic altars. Their is no such thing as a Eucharist or Host in scripture.
-----End Quote------

Heb 9:2 "...:the bread of offering..." Where in scripture does it say we don't have to offer the bread offering anymore? The opposite is true. Jesus said we are to take, bless, and eat the bread as a sign of the new covenant that will be given (offered) for us. He told his apostles "Do THIS...", that is, offer the bread as a amenesis (make present again) of him. The bread offering was instituted in Lev 7:11 as a peace offering to be offered with the bloody thanksgiving offering. Eucharist means thanksgiving (I think it is a Greek word). Host means "victim" and this word is used because Jesus is the victim Lamb of God who continues to offer the one sacrifice of Calvary forever.

The "once for all" in Heb 9:12 is a rebuttal to Heb 6::6 "and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt." The argument was about what to do with people who repented after falling away, so the "once for all" does not talking about the Eucharist, so it does not apply to this discussion.

These prophesies would not be true if the Eucharist is just a symbolic memorial. It is much more than a memorial.
And in Malachi 1:11 it says that an offering will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting. This means the offering must continue all over the earth after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The offering would not be just for the Jews as it was in the old covenant. This is what Catholics do.

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From bzzz: Doesn't it bother you to have a religion BASED on a sacriment that doesn't even exist in Scriptures? Don't you think, if true, Paul and Peter and others would have spent time explaining it clearly? Why then is the Bible silent on such a doctrine, but the catholic church {and your select quotes) filled with it?
End quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Epistles were written to people that were already believers, so the writers did not include all the details. Heb 6:1-2 "Therefore, let us leave behing the basic teaching about Christ..., instructions about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment." The Bible was never intended to be a textbook on Introduction to Christianity. They writers were clarifing issues, not teaching from square one. You seem to have an over-reliance upon Sacred Scripture to the exclusion of tradition. All of your objections center on the fact that there is lack of scriptural evidence for certain ritual and theological aspects of the Eucharist. Even if that were the case, (and I don't think that it is) the understanding of the Eucharist is developed by Scripture and Tradition, a tradition that is connected to the Jewish understanding of Passover and ritual meal. Without the background information, you can't interprete Scripture properly. If you want to understand the Eucharist, study about the Passover.

Luke 22:14-20 Jesus takes, blesses, breaks and gives His body and blood. Then He says "Do THIS in memory of me." He told the apostles to take, bless, break and give His body and blood. That is what the successors of the apostles do. The Last Supper is a fulfillment of the Passover. Outside that context, you can't understand it. The Passover is to be celebrated in perpetuity, so the Eucharist is a continuation of the Passover.