misunderstandings between Catholics and Christians

[hermanodaniel]

How does one determine truth from a lie? By testing the spirits! How does one test the spirits? By checking if they confess Jesus coming in the flesh!

In 1 John 4 it states
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Now I am quite sure every one here is acquainted with these verses but examine it carefully. Literally we can easily overlook and say all those that confessed Jesus coming in the flesh would certainly passed this test and all those who don't literally confess Jesus coming in the flesh are rejected such as: Islam, Hinduism, Taoism Buddhism and so forth. Now, catholics and heck even Jehovah Witnesses literally confess Jesus coming in the flesh so they pass the test right? WRONG! What does Jesus coming in the flesh mean other than literally confessing him coming in the flesh? Well Jesus we know is the Word of God and if we acknowledge and understand this in the spirit then when we read anyone who doesn’t confess him coming in the flesh is anti-christ its referring to obscuring his Deity as the Word of God. In other words, those who truly confess him coming in the flesh will glorify him for who he is THE WORD OF GOD. Those who only confess in the literal sense like catholics, jehovah witnesses etc. are obscuring his Deity by their doctrines that do not coincide with the Word of God, hence, a different Gospel and different Jesus who is not the Word of God but an impostor. (2 Corinthians 11) The body of Christ confesses Jesus coming in the flesh by exalting the Word of God above everything! Jesus Christ's supremacy John 1; Colossians 1 & 2; Psalm 138:2

Blessings

P.S BTW I have nothing against Catholics personally or anybody holding onto certain religions but since the Word of God is hidden in my heart I cannot tolerate their beliefs that are contrary to the truth! In Christ and his love I say seek Christ who is THE WORD OF GOD refined 7x!

 

[violakat]

Is that what Catholics believe? That Mary has special powers and can override Jesus Christ?

They worship her AS A GOD?

I wasn't saying they see her as a God, but, I could easily see how my post could be interpreted that way, since I did post the two commandments. What I was saying is that God and God alone is to be worshiped. Saying the Hail Mary doesn't absolve you from sin. What you are actually doing is worshiping Mary and putting her on the same pedestal as God.

And yes, some do actually think she has special power, as well as other saints.

 

[LightningClap0002]

But the words of Our Lord are quite clear.

This IS my Body. If we accept Him at His word, the Eucharist IS Jesus's Body.

Now, I'm not asking you to believe it right now, but suppose you did believe exactly that. That the bread and wine truly become the literal body and blood of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ.... Would you not bow down before Him?

If we accept Him at His word, then the bread He broke certainly was His body. Does Jesus break bread at every mass? Is there any reason for Jesus to embody every loaf of bread? Is there any biblical description for how bread becomes Christ's body?

My issue is not with bowing to Christ, but with bowing to a human creation as though it were God himself; no matter if that creation is blessed or cursed, it is idolatry.

Idol : An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

 

[JaumeJ]

If we accept Him at His word, then the bread He broke certainly was His body. Does Jesus break bread at every mass? Is there any reason for Jesus to embody every loaf of bread? Is there any biblical description for how bread becomes Christ's body?

My issue is not with bowing to Christ, but with bowing to a human creation as though it were God himself; no matter if that creation is blessed or cursed, it is idolatry.

Idol : An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Some commands are to be obeyed simply to give us a demonstration of our faith and love. It is good to always remember Yeshua's gift to each of us, thus when we break bread we do it in memory of Him, a demonstration of love and respect.

When the adversary challenged Yeshua to change the stones to bread, Yeshua replied to him that man does not live by bread alone, but every Word the proceeds from the Mouth of God.

If we live by His Word, Yeshua's, we are indeed eating the bread, and if we live as Yeshua lived, we are indeed drinking the wine, the Blood, the Life. This is true communion with Yeshua, the act of breaking bread is only a loving demonstration.

 

[dscherck]

Is it important what you think? The Word of God says the 10, this is the content, ten commandments. I do not listen to thoughts of men, I listen to men of the Holy Spirit. It is important to distinguish between the two.

See that: s the thing. You see worshipping other gods and making idols as two desperate commandments. But there is an equally accepted practice of counting those verses as part of one commandment. And there is an argument to be said that coveting a man's property is different from coveting his wife. There is no set standard in Scripture for how to group the 14 statements we call the ten commandments.

Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dscherck]

If we accept Him at His word, then the bread He broke certainly was His body. Does Jesus break bread at every mass? Is there any reason for Jesus to embody every loaf of bread? Is there any biblical description for how bread becomes Christ's body?

My issue is not with bowing to Christ, but with bowing to a human creation as though it were God himself; no matter if that creation is blessed or cursed, it is idolatry.

Idol : An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

But the Eucharist doesn't fit your definition of an idol. It isn't an image or representation of God. It IS God. Are you saying that Our Lord can't make every celebration of the Eucharist his Flesh and His Blood?

Scripture is quite clear that Our Lord says the bread and wine is His body. He never says it symbolizes His Body. And the reactions of the people with Him reflect the idea that He isn't speaking figuratively.
Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

 

[eternally-gratefull]

But the Eucharist doesn't fit your definition of an idol. It isn't an image or representation of God. It IS God. Are you saying that Our Lord can't make every celebration of the Eucharist his Flesh and His Blood?

Scripture is quite clear that Our Lord says the bread and wine is His body. He never says it symbolizes His Body. And the reactions of the people with Him reflect the idea that He isn't speaking figuratively.
Sent from my XT875 using Tapatalk 2

Actually your wrong. The actions of the people who thought he spoke literally left him. The reactions of those who understood he spoke of his flesh as the words the spirit gave him, which give life. (it is the spirit who gives life, the words I speak are spirit and life) is the fact they stayed.

The Eucharist does not give the partaker what Christ promised it would do.

He said they would never hunger and thirst. Yet those who partake of the Eucharist hunger for it all the time

He said they would never die. Yet eating the eucharist does not assure eternal life

He said they would HAVE eternal life. But one has to keep eating and still is not assured of having what God calls eternal.

He said he would raise them on the last day (A non believer is not raised By Christ, Revelations tell us death and Hades are DELIVERED TO HIM for final judgment. Yet whoever eats the Eucharist are not guaranteed to be resurrected.

He said they would live forever. But eating the Eucharist does not guarantee they will not suffer the second death and die eternally.

those who teach the Eucharist base it on a few verses in a whole passage where Christ is chastising people who came to him looking for a free handout, And telling them to look for spiritual food which will endure forever. Which is not only what he is teaching, but what he will do,

If the eucharist was this spiritual food which endured forever, it would not die, and one would not need to eat it on a weekly basis.

All one has to do is study the whole of John 6 to see this.

 

[Mooky]

Romanism is incompatible with true biblical faith, because of it's extra-biblical teachings.It relies on the traditions of men rather than the only source of Truth ;the infallible God breathed Word.

"I warn everyone who hears the the words of the prophecy of this scroll:If anyone adds anything to them,God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
REVELATION 22:18,19 NIV

 

[JaumeJ]

Romanism is incompatible with true biblical faith, because of it's extra-biblical teachings.It relies on the traditions of men rather than the only source of Truth ;the infallible God breathed Word.

"I warn everyone who hears the the words of the prophecy of this scroll:If anyone adds anything to them,God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
REVELATION 22:18,19 NIV

Amen, this is also in the Torah. We are not to add or take away from the Word of Yahweh. I believe this to be a commandment, unless you believe our heavenly Father is simply suggesting this.

 

[Mooky]

Also;

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you,let them be under God's curse!As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!"

GALATIANS 1:8,9 NIV

 

[JaumeJ]

Also;

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you,let them be under God's curse!As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!"

GALATIANS 1:8,9 NIV

Amen, you use the Word as a teacher. Our final and only Authority on any given question is Yeshua, no one else loves us so much as to do all He did just for you and for me. Praise Yahweh, amen.

 

[SantoSubito]

Romanism is incompatible with true biblical faith, because of it's extra-biblical teachings.It relies on the traditions of men rather than the only source of Truth ;the infallible God breathed Word.

"I warn everyone who hears the the words of the prophecy of this scroll:If anyone adds anything to them,God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
REVELATION 22:18,19 NIV

"Romanism" been a long time since I heard that one; why not call it by it's real name, Roman Catholicism? I don't call you a heretical schismatic now do I?

That being said I would march under the banner of "Romanism" any day, rather than join up with the watered down Christianity that has been promulgated since the Reformation.

 

[Nattmaran]

misunderstandings between Catholics and Christians

But Catholics are Christians?

 

[violakat]

But Catholics are Christians?

Yes and no, and that is also the same for Protestants as well.

What makes a person a Christian is not their denomination. Nor is it that they grew up in a church or claim they are Christian. Instead what makes a person a Christian is the acceptance as Christ their savior.

 

[dscherck]

But Catholics are Christians?

Last I checked we were.

 

[iamsoandso]

think you summed it up in the beginning yourself sill.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you said "the difference between Catholics and Christians",,,,,,,,,,,,,,notice you did not consider yourself in amongst the congregation of ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Christians"??????????,,,,,,,,,,it was your nature to say "Catholics and Christians" and point out that there is a difference between them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"that is the difference",,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is the difference,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we are not divided,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"why do you devide yourself from the christian body in your speech????????????"

 

[dscherck]

Actually your wrong. The actions of the people who thought he spoke literally left him. The reactions of those who understood he spoke of his flesh as the words the spirit gave him, which give life. (it is the spirit who gives life, the words I speak are spirit and life) is the fact they stayed.

The Eucharist does not give the partaker what Christ promised it would do.

He said they would never hunger and thirst. Yet those who partake of the Eucharist hunger for it all the time

He said they would never die. Yet eating the eucharist does not assure eternal life

He said they would HAVE eternal life. But one has to keep eating and still is not assured of having what God calls eternal.

He said he would raise them on the last day (A non believer is not raised By Christ, Revelations tell us death and Hades are DELIVERED TO HIM for final judgment. Yet whoever eats the Eucharist are not guaranteed to be resurrected.

He said they would live forever. But eating the Eucharist does not guarantee they will not suffer the second death and die eternally.

those who teach the Eucharist base it on a few verses in a whole passage where Christ is chastising people who came to him looking for a free handout, And telling them to look for spiritual food which will endure forever. Which is not only what he is teaching, but what he will do,

If the eucharist was this spiritual food which endured forever, it would not die, and one would not need to eat it on a weekly basis.

All one has to do is study the whole of John 6 to see this.

It's quite clear that Our Lord is speaking literally in John 6. You'll note the reactions of the people who left, they were aghast that He would insist on eating His Flesh. Just as the Israelites needed to actually eat the flesh of the Passover Lamb, we too need to eat the flesh of the perfect Paschal Lamb of God. And it's interesting to note that unlike in other instances where His followers misunderstood His words or were confused over His teachings, He didn't explain it. Instead He doubled down essentially. Look:

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

Now we often see people talk about "the spirit give life..." as if that proves He was being symbolic. But it proves the opposite.

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

John 6 is quite clear, the Eucharistic meal is NOT symbolic. And we can see from the united testimony of Christians for the first thousand years that this belief was what was taught, even by the Apostles themselves. In fact, many early Christians were martyred because the Romans believed them to be cannibals specifically because of what they believed regarding the Eucharist.

 

[dscherck]

Bowing to a human creation is akin to idol worship. Bowing to God is reverence. Do you really think they are comparable?

You're dodging the question. If you truly believed that you were in the literal, physical presence of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, would you not bow down in reverence?

 

[dscherck]

Last time I was in my dentist's office, I saw a national geographic, and one the front page they had "a walk through Christianity." They showed various photos, and explained some of the history behind Christianity.

The thing that stood out to me the most was this. The catholics have a human skull that was dug up in the 1200's which they supposedly believe was the skull of Mary (how would they possibly know that anyways?). What did they do with this skull? They put it in a gold casing. This is just idol worship. There is NOTHING in the Bible that even SUGGESTS that Mary should be put on a pedistal like this and worshiped. In fact, the Bible clearly goes against such a practice. This whole thing was just sickening to me.

Wait, what?

Mary was taken up into Heaven. Body and soul just like Enoch. How would we have her skull?

 

[Consumed]

You're dodging the question. If you truly believed that you were in the literal, physical presence of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, would you not bow down in reverence?

An object made by hands to symbolise anything isnt something we are told not to bow down too.
Reverence for Jesus is doing as He has asked us to do, not man, willingly,