Warning! Catholic church is a FALSE religion

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Test_F_i_2_Luv

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2009
1,601
31
48
The RCC is undecided whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not. They oppose and consider sinful the open practice of the lifestyle.

Reading the Catechism, sections 2357-2359, will show this.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has also commented on the issue:
http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.shtml

Molesting of children is not something that happens exclusively with children/teens in the RCC. Therefore, I guess all denominations approve of alternative lifestyles.


Catholicism and Homosexuality

I know this a "hot-button" issue, so I'll keep my comments brief. I believe that God considers homosexuality to be a sin, just like fornication or extramarital sex...all sins, none better or worse in his eyes than the other. Mankind has twsited that in many ways, driven by fear, hate, and spiritual corruption. But in the end, the misuse of that standard doesn't warrant its exclusion. in other words, just because some idiots have twisted God's Word to suit themselves and ruined lives with it, that doesn't mean that God's original commands no longer apply. God wants His children to have exciting sex often, in the security of a Godly marriage...that's His plan. The boundaries are placed to protect us from our own tendency to rebel, and the guilt and punishment brought on as a result. But nowadays, the Catholic church reportedly considers homosexuality to be an "alternative lifestyle" (evident by the recent increase in kids being molested by priests, and the church doing little or nothing to stop it).
 

Test_F_i_2_Luv

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2009
1,601
31
48
Test_F_i_2_Luv: Of all these, the only one I care to address is the early church writers.

I find it interesting and enlightening to understand how Christians in distant centuries understood passages of Scripture. When I hear sermons given in protestant churches, ministers will sometimes reflect on thoughts of ministers from the early 1900's or the 1800's. While some congregation members seem awed by such references to individuals that lived a couple hundred years ago, those centuries are actually very recent. Our roots go back 2,000 years, not 200 years.

We would be in tough shape knowing the process of how our canonized Bible came to be without the early church writers.

MahogonySnail
: Remember early church writers are only some christians. They may not reflect the belief of the majority at the time. Many of the early church writers are a bit off on some areas in their theology, many were basically philosphers, and so were corrupt with man's teachings in some areas.

Test_F_i_2_Luv: What we have from them is what we have for documentation of what happened in the early church. Since Bibles weren't plentiful and illiteracy was likely high, I have little reason to believe that the typical layman would think any different than what was presented by church teachers. If there was some other movements, someone would likely have noted those movements. If you can point to some other sources besides the early church fathers and Jewish historians such as Josephus, by all means do. For now, I have no reason to believe anything other than what they heard by word of mouth or through a early church teacher.

A reason why I do not agree with the RCC on the authority of Tradition is because of varying opinions of the church fathers.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
I have little reason to believe that the typical layman would think any different than what was presented by church teachers
varying opinions of the church fathers
exactly, which makes it difficult to establish the reliability of the early church writings and even more difficult to claim that all christians in that period believed the same as the early church fathers.

If their views were so varied, which early church father do you suppose the lay people followed?
 
R

roaringkitten

Guest
exactly, which makes it difficult to establish the reliability of the early church writings and even more difficult to claim that all christians in that period believed the same as the early church fathers.

It doesn't matter if they believed in the early church fathers....It matters if they trusted Jesus as their Savior 100% w/o thinking any good works merits them heaven! The way the catholic church teaches salvation is works......It is not Biblical, it will cost many their eternity sadly. Which is why I am warning the catholics....
 
S

suaso

Guest
Considering the persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire until the 300s, it is safe to say that the early Christians were too busy trying to survive and weren't exactly coming together to discuss doctrine like they would later do when the persecutions ended. Once they ended, we had all kind of fun heresiies to deal with. Here are some fine examples of early heresy (click on the bold terms. they are linked to more detailed articles):

140 AD: Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul; for them Christianity was purely a gospel of love to the exclusion of any law. Only virgins, widows, and celibates were baptized by the Marcionists; married people could not advance beyond the catechumenate.

100s-200s AD: Modalism. A form of Trinitarian heresy of the second and third centuries, Modalism held that there is only one Person in God, who manifests himself in various ways, or modes.

100s AD: Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new "Church of the Spirit". The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This claim meant that their fanatically rigorous views concerning morality superseded the authentic revelation of Christ that had been handed down in the Church. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage

100s: Valentinianism. A form of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism (see above) based on the teaching of one Valentinus, who lived in Rome between 136 and 165. The Valentinians claimed that the visible world had been created by the God of the Old Testament but that only the invisible world was real. According to them, Christ came to deliver mankind from its bondage to matter and the physical world; most of mankind, however, wholly engrossed in matter, would nevertheless end in eternal perdition. (Think of The Matrix)

300s AD: Arianism. A major heresy that arose in the fourth century and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. For Arius, there was only one Person, the Father. According to Arian theory, the Son was created. This is a heresy because if God did not become man, then the world has not been redeemed and the faith itself eventually dissolves. Arianism was formally condemned in 325 by the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea.

362 AD: Macedonianism. A heresy named after Macedonius, an Arian bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 362,) whose followers denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit: the Spirit was declared by them not to proceed from the Father but to be a creation of the Son. Macedonianism was condemned in 381 by the ecumenical Council of Constantinople.

300s AD: Priscillianism. It denied Christ's divinity and real humanity, holding that human souls were united to bodies in punishment for their sins.

400s AD: Monophysitism. A fifth-century heresy holding that in Christ there is only one nature, a divine nature. Thus, Monophysitism denies the true human nature of Christ; this human nature is absorbed into Christ's divine nature, according to Monophysitism.

400s AD: Nestorianism. A fifth-century heresy claiming that there are two distinct Persons in the Incarnate Christ, one human and one divine. The Church teaches that Christ was and is a divine person who took on a human nature. According to Nestorianism, it is unthinkable that God was born, crucified, and died; nor could Mary really have been the mother of God, but only the mother of a human being conjoined to God. Nestorianism, which took its name from Nestorius, a bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 451), was condemned by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431.

400s AD: Pelagianism. A heretical doctrine on divine grace taught by Pelagius (355-425), a monk from the British Isles who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius I. Pelagius argued that the Church's teaching that in order to do good, divine grace in the soul was necessary. This canceled human free will. Pelagianism included a cluster of other beliefs and essentially entailed a denial of the Church's doctrine of Original Sin.

784 AD Adoptionism. Adoptionism held that Jesus was not really God but merely a man to whom special graces had been given and who achieved a kind of divine status at his baptism.

Now, who decides how to deal with this stuff? Who decides what orthodoxy is? What are we to do when people are interpreting scriptures to come up with this madness? Who has the final say? All of these heresies had biblical sources to back them up due to improper understanding of scripture. But by whose authority is proper interpretation given to? Who do we turn to to get the verdict? We have our popes, bishops, and councils to set in stone for us what is and is not orthodox. That is why some Early Church fathers say some things that are good, and we keep the good, and when they say things that are wrong, we discard them. We weigh what is being proposed against the tradition of what has always been taught backed up by what is in the Bible. That is why the above were deemed heresies.
 
L

lifetime

Guest
Kitty, you're not making sense. You say a person is saved when they believe in Jesus as their savior, which Catholics do, and then you add all kinds of extra criteria on to that so then it's not just believing in Jesus as our savior, you're making it a whole lot more than that, believe this believe that blah blah blah. So what is it? If a person believes in Jesus as their savior but doesn't meet all of your other rules they're not saved? I thought it was just believing in Jesus as our savior. Which is it? Just that or not?
 
K

kujo313

Guest
Why not confess your sin to the one you've sinned against? Jesus did say that you should leave your gift at the altar and go make amends and then come back and offer your "gift".

Also, you said:

Does anyone not find it shameful that there is a specific thread devoted exclusively to Catholic Bashing? Why must you have to bash us? I have never felt more hated in my life to be perfectly honest.

It's not "bashing" but rather pulling catholics off their "high horse" because the true Church is full of believers, not just those from one religion corrupted by man-made rules.


Moviefan:
Priestly Confession and Absolution

(1)The Catholic doctrine insists that in order to be seen as clean by God, every person must confess to a priest, who then gives them absolution for their sins. In other words, this is clearly a "salavtion by human effort" mentality, which erases the need for Christ's sacrifice completely.
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." ~1 Timothy 2:5~
(2)The doctrine of necessary confession places the priest in divine authority, seemingly with no need to involve Jesus at all. This then raises the question, "Whom does the priest confess to when he screws up?" What makes a priest so fundamentally different from the parishioners in this way?

1. In order to be Saved, I must believe and repent. This is an effort made on my part. I am a human. This is a human effort to attain salvation, and I only attain salvation because of Christ’s salvation for me that I am rewarded for believing and repenting.

2. Christ places the priest in authority: “When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20 22:23). The priest says this: “"I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This involves Jesus acting through the priest (as per his permission in the quote above from John) and is only possible because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. We are forgiven in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And who does the priest go to? Another priest. The Pope also confesses to a priest. Priests and parishoners are all human, all sin, all need forgiveness. There is no difference.

The 3 Vows for Nuns

Simply put, the vows every nun is required to take upon entering a convent include the following:

(1)The Vow of Poverty
(2)The Vow of Obedience
(3)The Vow of Chastity


Luckily for me, I have a great amount of experience working with, learning under, and knowing nun and monks (who are female and male versions of the same thing).

1. "A certain ruler asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.' He replied, 'I have kept all these since my youth.' When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. Jesus looked at him and said, 'How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!'" (Lk. 18:18-23)
It isn’t that one can’t own things to get close to God, so much as it is seen as a sacrifice to give up things for God. If you are not willing to give up all you own for Christ, then there may be a problem. Do you have to? No. The actual vow of poverty is that you own nothing. No property is yours. Property is shared and sparse. You have only what you need to survive.

2. The Abbess, Mother Superior (for nuns) or Abbot (for monks) does not replace Christ at all. She/He is merely the head of the body, so to speak, and seeing how all authority is given by God (none have it on their own), they obey their Abbess/Abbot. Why obey your parents? Because it is pleasing to God. In obeying your parents you are obeying God because they are the authority over you. You are not obligated to obey unjust authority, this also applies to nuns/monks. If their Abbess/Abbot tells them to do anything contrary to Scriptures, they are obligated not to do it.

3. This is a custom. This is a practice…we are all called to Chastity anyways, are we not? Chastity before marriage says we do not fornicate. Chastity within marriage says we do not commit adultery. The life of a monk/nun is the single life, so the chastity appropriate to that life is one without fornication.
Mind you, no one has to become a nun or a monk. It is a choice. One freely chooses to do this, and one freely chooses to live in poverty, obedience, and chastity. If one does not like this, they do not have to be a monk or nun.

Catholicism and Homosexuality

The Church considers homosexuality to be a disordered condition. It considers homosexual sex to be sinful. Homosexuals, the Church teaches, are called to a life of celibacy. As celibates, they must live chastely as all Christians must: that means, as people who can not be married because marriage is reserved exclusively between a man and a woman, that they are called to a life without sex since abstinence is the rule for unmarried people.

Now, priests molesting kids is a statistically very rare thing, and has no barring on what the Church teaches about homosexuality. These links may be helpful on that topic:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26955
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
http://www.advocateweb.org/cease/csa.htm
http://www.reformation.com/CSA/startPage.html
 

NoahsDad

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2006
594
6
0
140 AD: Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul; for them Christianity was purely a gospel of love to the exclusion of any law. Only virgins, widows, and celibates were baptized by the Marcionists; married people could not advance beyond the catechumenate.
100s AD: Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new "Church of the Spirit". The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This claim meant that their fanatically rigorous views concerning morality superseded the authentic revelation of Christ that had been handed down in the Church. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage
400s AD: Pelagianism. A heretical doctrine on divine grace taught by Pelagius (355-425), a monk from the British Isles who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius I. Pelagius argued that the Church's teaching that in order to do good, divine grace in the soul was necessary. This canceled human free will. Pelagianism included a cluster of other beliefs and essentially entailed a denial of the Church's doctrine of Original Sin.
hmmmmmm some of these sond fermiliar.......think I've noticed some of thee views used to back up debates in these forums........
 
S

suaso

Guest
Kujo: "It's not "bashing" but rather pulling catholics off their "high horse" because the true Church is full of believers, not just those from one religion corrupted by man-made rules"

I understand how yourself and others like you feel the need to inform people that do not believe as you do that you believe they are incorrect. This is actually a virtuous desire and I commend you for what I believe is your genuine concern for my salvation. But, look at the way in which this is being done. I did not ride into CC on a high horse at all. No one seems to have, yet here is the thread pulling people off of a High Horse they have not rode in on. Such actions make it appear as if the ones doing the bashing are themselves on a high horse if they think it is their duty/right to pull people off of theirs.
 
T

thefightinglamb

Guest
So who decides what is right? You claim the Roman catholic church, in the same way the jews can claim the synongogue...and justify whatsoever...but the Roman Catholic church isn't the Lord...Spiritually you can retreat or take refuge in Jesus Christ for and in anything you face...you don't have to go to something outside your own spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you.
 
T

thefightinglamb

Guest
Also, how do you answer people that say if the bread and wine became the same body as Christ who suffered for us...how can this be? He was alive at the table? As of yet no suffering had been done...so it makes absolutely no sense to say that the grapes and bread/wheat were the body that were to be given as they hadn't been given yet...

Also catholics need to consider what the word "remembrance" means...

If I remember you does it mean you are actually physically here or not? It makes little sense for Jesus to say to do this in remembrance of me, if they could simply see him...

But also consider, what is Jesus in? Is he in the taste? Is he in the appearance? Is he in the feel? Is he in the smell? He is in none of these but ' spiritually he is there'...you don't really understand what spiritually means though...for he is there to an extant but he is also spiritually in the Lord if you believe in him...
 
S

suaso

Guest
As to "So who decides what is right?" I was trying to convey that in the Catholic Church, we believe that it is our bishops under the authority of the Pope (The bishop of Rome) that maintains what is considered by us to be orthodox belief. We belive that the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from dogmatically defining heresy as orthodoxy. Basically, what it all comes down to, is "What has the Church said about ______ in the past?" Well, then we have to ask "Who speaks for the Church?" Is it my Catholic neighbor? Is it the kindly old priest down the road? Is it Sister Assumpta at Sacred Heart Middle School? No, ultimately the Pope is the spokesman for the Church. That is what I mean to say. We of couse believe that the Holy Spirit (God) prevents the Pope from officially declaring anything contrary to Christ's message, with Christ (God) being the supreme reality of truth and the author of truth as Truth Himself.

"Also, how do you answer people that say if the bread and wine became the same body as Christ who suffered for us...how can this be? He was alive at the table?"
This is something that naturally baffles even Catholics. It seems impossible that Christ can say "This is my body/this is my blood" while he is holding bread and wine in his hands, and while he is still sitting at the table. It makes no sense. Of course, it also makes no sense that while Jesus Christ, the incarnate eternal Word of God, God who can not die, the Word who through whom all things were made, somehow managed to die on the cross. While Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, was nailed to the cross, suffered and died for our sins, did he cease to be the eternal Lord of all of creation? No. He was still the eternal Lord of Creation. By his Lordship over creation he still maintained the existence of all that exists, even durring his passion and death on the cross. What is easy to forget is that God does not operate within time as you and I. He can be in the flesh on earth, he can be Lord over all, and he can be in the bread and wine simply because he wills it. Being Lord over all creation given him the ability to be Lord over matter. Bread and Wine are material things, and he is Lord over them, and can therefore change their substance as he pleases, even to the point of making this seemingly contradictory event of holding bread and wine, making it his body and blood, while being in a body of his own at the same time. How does the sacrifice of himself on the cross redeem all of mankind and not just those who witnessed it in 33 AD? Because time does not exist for God. Events are things which take place for humans in time only. To God, all events are at once, having already happened, happening now, and happening forever. God is God, as it was in the beginning, is now, and unto ages of ages.

"But also consider, what is Jesus in?"
He is in the substance. He is in the being of the thing. He is. What is Suaso? Is Suaso flesh and bones, hair, a voice, blood vessles, organs, limbs, etc? Isn't thefightinglamb also these things? Our being, you and I, is not something that can be measured and evaluated scientifically. We can see the effects of us, but what makes you you is a little different than what makes me me. What makes you you and me me could change. I could experience a traumatic event that would cause me to behave in a drastically different way. I would still appear as flesh and bones, hair, a voice, blood vessles, organs, and limbs. The essence of what is Suaso would have changed, but the appearence would not. More drastically, if I were to die, my corpse would not look much different than my body when it was not a corpse. But the essence surely has changed: the soul (that which animates the body) is no longer in the body. Can one tell this by looking at the body? It looks the same as before but is now a corpse. This is what happend to the bread and wine. Its essence is different, but its appearence is the same. It is not the same thing it was, it only looks like the same thing.

And yes. I do belive in the Lord.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
The point is though , that while God can do anything and could change bread and wine into flesh and blood, I've never heard of that happening and I bet it doesn't happen in your masses.

The bread and wine can only ever take on a symbolic meaning. Imagine him holding the bread and wine and saying to his disciples "this is my body, this is my blood", of course, they would not have really thought that what was in his hand and in the cup was actually his flesh. Because his flesh was still very much on his body. He was not saying it in a literal sense. He told them to do it in memory of them. To do something in memory always involves using a symbol to remind of that thing. He did not say that he would exist in the bread and in the cup.

The reason why Jesus used wine to represent his blood, is because he also referred to Himself as a vine. The wine is the fruit of the vine.

Catholics believe that when he took wine and said "this is my blood', that it really was his blood in the cup. You can't claim that Jesus meant his own literal blood , unless you also believe that when Jesus said "I am the vine" , that he meant he literally was a vine. Do catholics think Jesus was really a literal vine. He said he was , so it must be true.
 
B

BIWF

Guest
You are right it is a false religion. I am a member or the British-Israel World Federation and we teach that the papacy is the Antichrist. www.biwf-usa.com
 

Test_F_i_2_Luv

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2009
1,601
31
48
You mentioned Hare Krishna.

Do you label it as a eastern religion or as a cult?

Notice that the above line is a question. Unless you clearly state, in your reply, that your response is an answer to the question, I will ask again.
oh ok. Are you baptist or something. Non denominational. Hare Krishna? (j/k).
 
S

suaso

Guest
MahoganySnail:
The point is though , that while God can do anything and could change bread and wine into flesh and blood, I've never heard of that happening and I bet it doesn't happen in your masses.
No one ever heard of God becoming man either. But He did.


Catholics believe that when he took wine and said "this is my blood', that it really was his blood in the cup. You can't claim that Jesus meant his own literal blood , unless you also believe that when Jesus said "I am the vine" , that he meant he literally was a vine. Do catholics think Jesus was really a literal vine. He said he was so it must be true.
No, we don’t not think that he meant that he was a literal vine, because he said this:“Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5)

But in this same Gospel, previously, he says this:
“Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.” (John 6:31-32) “I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (John 6:48-56) “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” (John 6:60-61).

“Verily, verily, I say unto you” When Jesus says “Verily, Verily” or “Amen, Amen” or “Truly, Truly” He means what he is saying, not as a metaphor, but at literal truth.

“Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven” Here, he is taking an example to remind the disciples and all present, who are have eaten a miraculous supply of multiplies loaves, how God provided for them in the desert by sending down manna, an actual physical food from heaven. It was food which physically nourished the bodies of the Jews in the desert. He is saying here that the manna wasn’t the true bread from heaven, he is. Obviously, the Bible says that the Jews were given actual food from God, so Jesus is not calling God a liar but instead setting the crowd up to know that there is another kind of bread which is purer; another kind of bread from heaven that is of more value to the flesh and the soul.

“Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” Again, he is reminding them of their ancestors who were nourished in physical need, but they died. All the bread was good for was to nourish the body, yet still they died because it was of no avail to the soul. The bread he will give will do more than the manna in the desert.

“…the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Here, this bread which he is alluding to that is better than the manna given to the Jews, he explains is the flesh, his flesh, which he gives up for the life of the world. He gave up his flesh in sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of souls. This redemption therefore swings open the gates of heaven, that all men might have eternal life. Before, the Jews has no savior and were essentially barred from heaven (remember Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden. Paradise was cut off). When Jesus sacrifices himself on the cross, he opens heaven to all men who will believe. His flesh is given up for the life of the world: true life everlasting. The body will die, but the soul is not ****ed. This flesh he gives up is also the bread that he will give to his disciples.

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This question is asked by those present. How can he give us his flesh? It makes no sense to them. They did not question how he multiplied the loaves and fishes, but they question this. It is clear that they understand him to literally mean he will give them his actual flesh to eat. Their answer: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Hearing their question, Jesus re-enforces what he is saying, and does so in a way which shows he does not mean what he says to be taken as a metaphor. He does not use metaphorical language: “Verily Verily” means truly, truly; amen, amen. This is no mere metaphor.

“For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Again, non-metaphorical language here: Indeed is the same as truly, or verily. He says his flesh is truly meat and his blood is truly drink. He does not say “Like meat and like drink” or anything to indicate metaphor.

“This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” Realizing that this is not metaphor and that Jesus really means to give his flesh as food and his blood as drink, people are again astounded. It is difficult to take seriously someone, whom many believe is the messiah, say “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” if they actually mean it. This is why they reply in this manner. And to answer them again, Jesus says:

“Doth this offend you?” He asks them if they are offended that he would suggest that the disciples, those who believe he is the messiah, the Son of the Father, God himself, eat his flesh and drink his blood. They ought to be offended if they are good Jews. The thought of cannibalism was as abhorrent then as it is now (he did not yet explain to them how they would eat his flesh and drink his blood as he would later show at the Last Supper). They had it clear in their mind that Jesus really meant to eat his physical flesh and drink his physical blood, which is why they were so offended, and many even left: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” (John 6:66-67). No where does he try to clarify himself to show them that he was speaking in metaphors. He meant what he said, and they knew it, and finding it a hard saying; and offensive saying, they left.

++++++++++++​

(The above was from Scripture. The following is the history of how this was agreed upon by early members of the Church).

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr:
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus:
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Against Heresies., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

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

Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

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

John’s Gospel shows us what the Eucharist is. The Last Supper is where Jesus showed us how we are to partake in the Eucharist. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the king of Salem and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek.” He offers up his own flesh as bread and his own blood as wine, and the bread and wine are his flesh and blood. And important thing to not, and this is not my original writing but that of another, is: “The Greek word we translate as "do" is poien, which is used in the Septuagint translation of Exodus 29:38 where it is translated as "offer" (as in sacrifice). The Greek word we translate as "remembrance" is anamnesis which, along with the Hebrew word zikkaron, is more than just a "memorial", but a re-presenting.” Think of how Jews celebrate Passover. It isn’t just something they do, but it makes present the events of Passover into their current time. To “do this in memory” of Jesus as he asked, is to make it present: to make him present. Remember also Luke 24:15-16 -“ And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” They were walking with Jesus and did not know it was him, until…”And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight“ (Luke 24:30-31). Only after he had broken bread did they see him. He was made present to them in the breaking of the bread.

The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist comes from scripture, and tradition (evidenced by the above statements from those who were members of the Church in it's early stages) backs up this belief by showing that it was believed in the early stages. If you'd like to see just how seriously the Church believed in the Eucharist, I reccomend reading those parts of the Didache (from 70 AD).
 

NoahsDad

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2006
594
6
0
Hold up!!!!
I was with ya till ya said this wasnt metoforic........Because in the following verses you Left out He"Jesus" Elaberates that He is speaking Spiritual Not Physical......

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Jesus was speakng Spirit Not flesh or physical........
Now dont get me wrong here,I totally understand what you aresaying,But to say that He meant to eat his flesh over and over again in the physical is totally off the mark in my thinking,Not to say you are wrong and I am right but,that dont even make spirtual sense,concidering esus saidthe flesh proffits Nothing.So to say you are literally eating flesh and drinking blood youre poffiting Nothing, You see?
 
R

roaringkitten

Guest
The Eucharist is not Biblical. Do you really think you are eating Jesus flesh and blood when you take the Lords supper? Like seriously, I think this should be ringing some bells....btw, The sacrifice of Christ is NOT an ongoing sacrifice, it was done ONCE!And it was sufficient!

"Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." Romans 6:9-10

The catholic religion follows rituals and does things completely opposed to the Word of God! Anyone who says they are a Christian and believes their good works are getting them salvation have been deceived!
 

nosha

Junior Member
Feb 22, 2006
3
0
1
well I want to say onething......Jesus honor Mary and she is his mother so she is the one who is close to God even more than angels so why we not do the same honor her whats wrong in that even Jesus done that ......want to say another thing here in Egypt we have many churchres by her name Mary and she doing many miracles so we are sure she hearing us front her son and praying for us front her son
 
S

suaso

Guest
Yes, he is saying the flesh is of no concern. This is speaking of the manna that was given to the Jews for their bodily nourishment. It helped their bodies, which was fine, but ultimately the reality is that they still died. All the manna did was nourish their flesh. What good is that in the greand scheme of things? His words that he are saying are words that will give life: the words he is saying is that the bread that comes down from heaven (himself) is the true bread that gives life though the body dies. The flesh is of no avail. So what if the manna in the desert fed them and nourished them? Care of the flesh is of no avail. Matters of the flesh is of no avail. The Spirit gives life. Jesus' words give life, and his words here are a command to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Roaring kitten, Jesus is alive in the Eucharist. Not dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.