A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Dr. Walter]

Aaron did not create the Calf to represent God Almighty. He re-created Bat and Egyptian deity or maybe the Summarian goddess Ninisina. It was a total break from Moses. I don't disagree with you about the mediator, but I have no problem with images as long as they aren't the object of worship. I can see a movie about Jesus and am moved to think about an pray to Jesus. I have no problem with that.

There is no evidence that Aaron used the Egyptian symbol to worship the Egyptian or Summarian gods. He simply did what all nations did to give visible representation to Jehovah and these were the ones familiar with him. If that were the case, Aaron would have been destroyed as well. Now, how the mixed multitude looked at them may reflect their views that Jehovah was the same as the Egyptian or Summarian gods.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look Dr. Walter I call Calvary a sacrifice as well. Does that mean I just re-crucified Jesus? No I becon back to that time that Jesus died once for us all. And the Catholics believe they upholding that one same sacrifice. Sorry that re-sacrificing thing doesn't work. And that is not the reason I reject your arguments. Your argument is based on what you think they are doing based on your particular bias. They believe entirely differently and so there is no meeting of the minds. What they actually believe is what I bring up. Your best argument so far with regard to this is that Aristotlan philosophy is inadiquate to determine scritpures with. I agree with that which questions defining Eucharist through Transubstantiation. Next you have to get past the Orthodox view of "it is his presence but we're not sure in what way it is" debate to finally get to the point of representation or literal?

You can't be serious with this argument?????? Do you put Christ back upon Calvary every Lord's Day? If you do then you are guilty of resacrificing Christ every Lord's Day. Your illustration is ludricous. However, this is exactly what the Catholics do in mass and if you can't see that you need to buy some new glasses. I could care less about their perverted explanations as any heretic can justify their own practices by some perverted interpretation of scriptures or some kind of vain reasoning. It is not their interpretation it is their declaration in contrast to the declarations of Scripture.

Your remembrance of Calvary does not convey saving grace to you does it? Can't you see the difference between simply remembering a finished event versus repeating an act that actually conveys grace?

 

[Dr. Walter]

If Jesus came to fulfill the law that means he did not violate it? Drinking blood violates it.

In John 6:35,39 he does explain what the metaphors "eat" and "drink" mean - "beleveth on him"

In I Corinthians 11 they are sick because they partook "unworthily" or in disobedience to what the symbolism teaches what must be their own proper spiritual condition for partaking of the Supper.

The problem with the Catholic defense in the use of "remembrance" is that the passover did not convey saving grace but the Roman Catholic perversion of the Supper conveys grace. Hence, it is interpreted to be something more than mere bringing to remembrance of what Christ did on the cross. What Christ did on the cross Christ said was "FINISHED." His sacrifice was "once and for all" (Heb. 10:10-14). What Catholics do in the mass is NEVER FINISHED but every mass "sacrifice" CONTINUES in conveying saving grace.

Well, people of His day also had a problem with believing that Jesus was the Son of God in the Flesh, so I'm not surprised by your position on the subject.



Jesus came to fulfill the law.



Yes and He always explained that metaphorical language after he used it. Yet, in the bread of life discourse, he does not. In fact, when the disciples leave him after hearing that "hard" statement, rather than turning to them and saying "what guys... its just a methaphor", he turns to the apostles and asks if they will leave him as well.

No one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue with, "And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’" This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink. He is God after all...



Just bread huh? Then Paul must have been confused where he says, in 1 Corinthians 11:27, that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.

1) How does one eat bread and drink wine in an unworthy manner? I mean, its just bread for cryin' out loud.

2) How is it that partaking of mere bread and wine in an unworthy manner can cause one to become sick or even die?

Oh wait... Paul was just using a metaphor here.



You are completely wrong on this! Catholics re-present the once and for all sacrifice they do not re-sacrific Him. You might wish to look at the Jewish meaning of the word "memorial" in the sense of the passover.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can't be serious with this argument?????? Do you put Christ back upon Calvary every Lord's Day? If you do then you are guilty of resacrificing Christ every Lord's Day. Your illustration is ludricous. However, this is exactly what the Catholics do in mass and if you can't see that you need to buy some new glasses. I could care less about their perverted explanations as any heretic can justify their own practices by some perverted interpretation of scriptures or some kind of vain reasoning. It is not their interpretation it is their declaration in contrast to the declarations of Scripture.

No you are so bias you can't see past your nose. I may not explain it well by my examples but they are not resacrificing Jesus Christ. And its not their declaration! From the Catachism.

611The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice

In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament."164

In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial

So by their own declaration you are shown to be mistaken.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If Jesus came to fulfill the law that means he did not violate it? Drinking blood violates it.

In John 6:35,39 he does explain what the metaphors "eat" and "drink" mean - "beleveth on him"

In I Corinthians 11 they are sick because they partook "unworthily" or in disobedience to what the symbolism teaches what must be their own proper spiritual condition for partaking of the Supper.

The problem with the Catholic defense in the use of "remembrance" is that the passover did not convey saving grace but the Roman Catholic perversion of the Supper conveys grace. Hence, it is interpreted to be something more than mere bringing to remembrance of what Christ did on the cross. What Christ did on the cross Christ said was "FINISHED." His sacrifice was "once and for all" (Heb. 10:10-14). What Catholics do in the mass is NEVER FINISHED but every mass "sacrifice" CONTINUES in conveying saving grace.

No one said Jesus drank blood. They got sick from communion because they were Partying eating and drinking (maybe even getting drunk). Which is disrespectful to the communion. and again they don't resacrifice by their own words. sheesh.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

the sect that believes in KJO, No pictoral or any representations of scriptures or the stories there in. I also suspect women only wear dresses and have their heads covered. and the group that believes any one who doesn't believe exactly as you do aren't saved. However, though I use sect I don't mean cult. I mean a sect of christianity as I believe you are christian. Though you may not believe the same about me. And Michael Mullet is an accepted historian probably fair to more sides that you are. And He's not the Only one with his views on the reformation. I think your view is entirely one sided (not God's btw) which is never how history works. There are all sorts of facets and directions and there was a political direction the reformation took. What was the first thing the Northern German princes did when they separated from the Catholic church? The confiscated wealthy monestary and their properties and increased their coffers. Much like Henry VIII.
How about Sheldon?

First, I am not part of a sect that believes in the KJO idea. Nor am I part of a group where the women only wear dresses and have their heads covered. And I am not part of a group that believes that unless everyone believes exactly as we do are not Christians. These things you somehow conjured up in your own mind, for what reason, I don't know.

The history I have read, through not in its entirety, concerning the Reformation was J.A. Wylie's work. I am not much a fan of most modern academics.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No you are so bias you can't see past your nose. I may not explain it well by my examples but they are not resacrificing Jesus Christ. And its not their declaration! From the Catachism. So by their own declaration you are shown to be mistaken.

Remembering Calvary does not impart actual saving grace! Their repitition of the Mass conveys actual saving grace! Now, which "sacrifice" actually procures saving grace - the cross or the mass? Which "sacrifice" is presented as "finished" - the cross or the mass? Which was performed "ONCE" the cross of the mass?

If the MASS was not interpreted to contain the presence of Christ and if the mass was not interpreted to impart saving grace - you may have a point. But the Catholic MASS is intepreted to contain the real presence of Christ through actual eating of it and in keeping with this vain idea it imparts actual saving Grace. Hence, it is a recrucifying of Christ every Mass as the real presence of Christ is presented as being repeatedly having his body broken and his blood imparted (to the priests) in a way that actually imparts saving grace.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, I am not part of a sect that believes in the KJO idea. Nor am I part of a group where the women only wear dresses and have their heads covered. And I am not part of a group that believes that unless everyone believes exactly as we do are not Christians. These things you somehow conjured up in your own mind, for what reason, I don't know.

The history I have read, through not in its entirety, concerning the Reformation was J.A. Wylie's work. I am not much a fan of most modern academics.

I conjured it up from the very legalistic IBF churches I went to when I was younger. Especially when I was in the service as they were the only bible believing church near my base. And that is how (unfortunately) I view IFB's that seem very extreme on a certain item. And also my brother inlaw goes to such a church.

As far as modern academics I do read them as well as older works and when I can get my hands on them the documents for certain events. Though in academia I wonder where J.A. Wylie's work stands? I will soon find out however.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Remembering Calvary does not impart actual saving grace! Their repitition of the Mass conveys actual saving grace! Now, which "sacrifice" actually procures saving grace - the cross or the mass? Which "sacrifice" is presented as "finished" - the cross or the mass? Which was performed "ONCE" the cross of the mass?

If the MASS was not interpreted to contain the presence of Christ and if the mass was not interpreted to impart saving grace - you may have a point. But the Catholic MASS is intepreted to contain the real presence of Christ through actual eating of it and in keeping with this vain idea it imparts actual saving Grace. Hence, it is a recrucifying of Christ every Mass as the real presence of Christ is presented as being repeatedly having his body broken and his blood imparted (to the priests) in a way that actually imparts saving grace.

It is clear from the statements that its the actual sacrifice that confers grace. However, they are sacremental and thus in their memorial of the original sacrifice grace is also confered. The Mass purports to conatain the real presence which imparts "saving grace" which in our lingo means sanctification. Thats part of the problem too no meeting of the minds on definition. And the breaking of the breaking of the bread is a memorial to the breaking of Christ body not breaking it again because each broken piece is not a bunch of pieces of christ but christ whole in each part. You applying again your bias.

 

[BillySunday1935]

I posted this late yesterday and three to four pages have gone by since. Oh well.
When I grew up as a Catholic the Ten Commandments were deliberately altered. There were three that related to God and seven that related to man. This command was deliberately omitted:

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

To make up for the Ten, the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," was split in two: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. Quite ingenuous for those that were never taught from a Bible and were discouraged from even owning one, don't you think?

The reason is obvious why the verse and the commandment was omitted.

Its not ommitted. God’s commandments are recorded in both Deuteronomy 5:6–21 and Exodus 20:2–17 and they don't add up to ten. In the numbering used the traditional Catholic formula the commandment prohibiting idolatry is not left out but, rather, is considered to be a part of the first commandment.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I conjured it up from the very legalistic IBF churches I went to when I was younger. Especially when I was in the service as they were the only bible believing church near my base. And that is how (unfortunately) I view IFB's that seem very extreme on a certain item. And also my brother inlaw goes to such a church.

As far as modern academics I do read them as well as older works and when I can get my hands on them the documents for certain events. Though in academia I wonder where J.A. Wylie's work stands? I will soon find out however.

Well, I am not a member of an IFB church. So, you have that cleared up now.

http://www.doctrine.org/history/

That is Wylie's history for your review.

The following quote on J. A. Wylie is taken from a publisher's Preface by Mourne Missionary Press:

"The Rev. James Aitken Wylie was for many years a leading Protestant spokesman. Born in Scotland in 1808, he was educated at Marischal College, Aberdeen and at St. Andrews; he entered the Original Seccession Divinity Hall, Edinburgh in 1827, and was ordained in 1831. Dr. Wylie became sub-editor of the Edinburgh Witness in 1846, and, after joining the Free Church of Scotland in 1852, edited the Free Church Record from 1852 until 1860. In 1860 he was appointed Lecturer on Popery at the Protestant Institute, a position he held until the year of his death. Aberdeen University awarded him the LL.D. in 1856."

I would also recommend Merle d'Aubigne, History of the Reformation. I have read portions of it, but cannot find an online copy. Come to think of it, I can't find my copy of it...bookstore...

 

[Dr. Walter]

No one said Jesus drank blood. They got sick from communion because they were Partying eating and drinking (maybe even getting drunk). Which is disrespectful to the communion. and again they don't resacrifice by their own words. sheesh.

You missed his argument and so you missed my explanation. He argued that Christ fulfilled the law and therefore the believer is not under the law and that law is not binding to the believer.

My response is that "fulfilled" does not mean do way but to obey it. Therefore, if Christ is our example, grace does not give liscence to sin but calls for obedience and I pointed out that this same law is reinforced in Acts 15 for the sake of the Jews.

 

[Dr. Walter]

and again they don't resacrifice by their own words. sheesh.

I know fully well what they deny. Unlike you, I am not defending what they beleive or what they deny. I am pointing out that regardless of what they believe or deny, the fact, the reality is, they ARE recrucifying Christ as a "sacrifice" every Mass and they are demanding that the MASS is imparting "saving" grace which they call "santifying grace."

It it is not what they CALL or DEFINE something that makes it that. It is what IT IS IN REALITY that makes it what it is. You are spinning your wheels on the former while I am dealing with the latter. Call it what it is not what they IMAGINE it to be. Get on the right side of the fence.

 

[BillySunday1935]

If Jesus came to fulfill the law that means he did not violate it? Drinking blood violates it.

In John 6:35,39 he does explain what the metaphors "eat" and "drink" mean - "beleveth on him"

In I Corinthians 11 they are sick because they partook "unworthily" or in disobedience to what the symbolism teaches what must be their own proper spiritual condition for partaking of the Supper.

Well, if its just symbolic then there shouldn't be any penalty for partaking unworthily should there? After all, its just a piece of bread and a cup of grape juice. Right...

The problem with the Catholic defense in the use of "remembrance" is that the passover did not convey saving grace but the Roman Catholic perversion of the Supper conveys grace. Hence, it is interpreted to be something more than mere bringing to remembrance of what Christ did on the cross. What Christ did on the cross Christ said was "FINISHED." His sacrifice was "once and for all" (Heb. 10:10-14). What Catholics do in the mass is NEVER FINISHED but every mass "sacrifice" CONTINUES in conveying saving grace.

And you just danced around most of what I wrote. Again, look at the Jewish passover meaning of the "memorial" - it is far more than a simple recollection - it means to make it real! That is the Jewish context and the one used and understood by Jesus and the apostles.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

I know fully well what they deny. Unlike you, I am not defending what they beleive or what they deny. I am pointing out that regardless of what they believe or deny, the fact, the reality is, they ARE recrucifying Christ as a "sacrifice" every Mass and they are demanding that the MASS is imparting "saving" grace which they call "santifying grace.".

The facts - the reality - according who, you? Then please explain how it is that the Church has been teaching this "error" for two thousand years and God just let those poor Catholics go straight to hell for committing such idolatry only to suddenly realize - "Hey! Those stupid Catholics have it wrong so I think I will suddenly reveal the truth to the reformers." Just look at the catacombs if you don’t believe me.

It it is not what they CALL or DEFINE something that makes it that. It is what IT IS IN REALITY that makes it what it is. You are spinning your wheels on the former while I am dealing with the latter. Call it what it is not what they IMAGINE it to be. Get on the right side of the fence.

Clearly, you have no concept that God is outside of time - the eternal NOW as it were. Sad...

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I know fully well what they deny. Unlike you, I am not defending what they beleive or what they deny. I am pointing out that regardless of what they believe or deny, the fact, the reality is, they ARE recrucifying Christ as a "sacrifice" every Mass and they are demanding that the MASS is imparting "saving" grace which they call "santifying grace."

It it is not what they CALL or DEFINE something that makes it that. It is what IT IS IN REALITY that makes it what it is. You are spinning your wheels on the former while I am dealing with the latter. Call it what it is not what they IMAGINE it to be. Get on the right side of the fence.

In reality its not that either. Christ isn't being broken. Bread is. And they are eating bread. That is whats actually happening. So you are still way off. And if they say his presence is there and they believe it in the Eucharist again it isn't christ being broken but bread or accidents. And christ is received by all whole not broken so your view falls even with that.

 

[DHK]

Its not ommitted. God’s commandments are recorded in both Deuteronomy 5:6–21 and Exodus 20:2–17 and they don't add up to ten. In the numbering used the traditional Catholic formula the commandment prohibiting idolatry is not left out but, rather, is considered to be a part of the first commandment.

Peace!

The Bible doesn't miss out anything. We all know that. But the RCC doesn't quote the Bible word for word. They quote an abbreviated edition of what they say is the Ten Commandments--those commandments which can easily be memorized by a child, and also are hung in a frame and put on a wall in a person's house. Isn't it common also in some Protestant's houses? But the Protestant version is different than the Catholic version. Why? Because the Catholics worship images, and would be embarrassed to include that in the Ten Commandments that they teach to others. This really is a no brainer.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In reality its not that either. Christ isn't being broken. Bread is. And they are eating bread. That is whats actually happening. So you are still way off. And if they say his presence is there and they believe it in the Eucharist again it isn't christ being broken but bread or accidents. And christ is received by all whole not broken so your view falls even with that.

Now lets consider your response:

"In reality its not either [FICTION]. Christ isn't being broken. Bread is [FACT]"

Seems to me what you said is the reality given in the Bible just as I concluded that the FACT given in Scripture is in contrast to the FICTION in the Mass. So, I am not way off at all but RIGHT ON.

"And if they say his presence is there [FICTION] and they beleive it in the Eucharist"[FICTION]

What they say is FICTION in regard to the mass. So again my distinction between the FACT of scriptures and the FICTION of Rome is a correct distinction.

"again it isn't christ being broken but bread [FACT]or accidents [FICTION]."

"And christ is received [FICTION] by all whole not broken [FICTION] so your view falls even with that [FICTION].

Do you even realize that in your concluding statement you are actually defending the FICTION of Rome??? The FACT is that what they observe is not the Lord's Supper at all (I Cor. 11:20) but is FICTIOUS from beginning to end and has no bearing, no relationship, no resemblance to the FACTUAL Biblical teaching or practice.

 

[BillySunday1935]

The Bible doesn't miss out anything. We all know that. But the RCC doesn't quote the Bible word for word. They quote an abbreviated edition of what they say is the Ten Commandments--those commandments which can easily be memorized by a child, and also are hung in a frame and put on a wall in a person's house. Isn't it common also in some Protestant's houses? But the Protestant version is different than the Catholic version. Why? Because the Catholics worship images, and would be embarrassed to include that in the Ten Commandments that they teach to others. This really is a no brainer.

Well, "brain" would be the operative word there, DHK.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

I consider a person who defends the papal lie of transubtantiation as equal to the one who is participating in it.

I worship Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth. What the papists worship is wafer and some wine they believe is the flesh and blood of Jesus, which it is not. They worship a lie.

Only those who are true Christians are my brother and sister and mother and father in Christ Jesus. While God's grace may have saved some Roman Catholic, and thus be my brother, God would have done this despite the papacy and not because of it. The papacy as a whole is Antichrist.

While the papacy wants to lay its claim and supremecy over me, claim to be Christ and the true Church, it does not make it so. Nor do I for one instant submit myself to a pope as the head of the church. It is the head of the false church, that Antichristian church, and Antichrist foretold of in the Scripture, and of which I am in total opposition and protest against.

You just cannot bring yourself to answer it can you?

But the Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. So my point is that, if you believe that Jesus is present in your worship services, why do you not fall down on your knees and worship Him? If you don't believe the He is present, then simply say so - I am not casting judgement either way.

Peace!