The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

[DHK]

DHK, remember that Humans were in Britan long before writing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You use evolutionary thought to try and prove the Bible. I have never heard of something so hilarious. The earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old and you say there were people inhabiting Britain 250,000 years ago. You are a funny man. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[lori4dogs]

You rarely share your position as you spend more time defending the RCC position. I was not responding to your position. I was responding to the RCC position on infant baptism, assumption of Mary and a host of other nonsense that is based upon HOT AIR instead of Biblical precept or principle.

Wong. Thinkingstuff doesn't defend the Catholic position. He states it CORRECTLY. Most posters on this board don't have a clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Seeing how Catholics are not allowed on this board to defend their positions, Thinkingstuff states it CORRECTLY. When he does this you accuse him of being a 'closet Catholic'.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wong. Thinkingstuff doesn't defend the Catholic position. He states it CORRECTLY. Most posters on this board don't have a clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Seeing how Catholics are not allowed on this board to defend their positions, Thinkingstuff states it CORRECTLY. When he does this you accuse him of being a 'closet Catholic'.

And in this case I'm not even doing that just showing a fallacy in the Anti-Catholic argument against the imaculate conseption.

 

[DHK]

Not entirely. They base it on statements from the books of Acts. Those ones that mention entire households which include both slave and children. No argument here. Save that they have also another Authority which we don't that they use. Which isn't entirely silent but with regard to Scripture they are.

You mean like the jailer's household? He was a middle-aged man. He had five children. Three of them were married. The two oldest had gone off to war, and thus had no children. The third one had just been married and therefore hadn't had time to be married. The other were two teen-age children who had just believed and been baptized. There were no infants. If you want the names I can give them to you as well.
The point?
My argument from silence is just as valid as yours. You are just making it all up that there were infants. It is an argument from silence just as mine is. Where the Bible is silent we must remain silent. The fact is that there is not a single instance in the Bible where an infant is baptized. Secondly it goes against all the theology of the Bible related to salvation. A man is justified by faith. It is impossible for an infant to have faith.

Yes. I believe in dinosaurs but its silliness to compare with the assumption of Mary which is based on speculation. Dinosaurs aren't dragons. Dragons are mythological creatures. Dinosaurs are real creatures that existed during the Cretacious and Jurasic periods. I believe Dinosaurs actually existed.

Dinosaurs may have actually existed. But is that what the KJV was actually talking about? Let's look at an example through a few other translations:

Isaiah 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Isaiah 13:22 And wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. (ASV)

Isaiah 13:22 And jackals shall cry to one another in their palaces, and wild dogs in the pleasant castles. And her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. (Darby)

Isaiah 13:22 Wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. (WEB)
--Whatever the animal was, there seems to be a general consensus that it was not a dinosaur.

No there isn't. We have dinosaur bones. I don't believe there are Marian bones or they would be the object of worship by both Catholic and Orthodox. In fact for this very reason I think God may have taken her up to heaven. to prevent further worship of her. No there is not. Dinosaurs are animals not theological consepts.

Whether actual dragon or simply dinosaur, there is more evidence for them than for the assumption and you know it. There is absolutely know evidence for the assumption Mary. There is no evidence that bathing in the Ganges River will wash away the sins of millions of Hindus, but they do it. The RCC operates on the same logic. If your a sucker to believe that kind of foolishness, foolishness not based on fact but on foolishness, then take heed to what the Bible says: "Let him who is ignorant be ignorant still."

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Apocalyptic literature isn't prove. I mean based on appocalyptic literature we have people creating whole world end senario that is insanes. And again Dragons are dinosaurs. They are mythological creatures. The Bible is using a myth to annunciate a point of the character of the devil.

Nevertheless I have made my point. The Bible speaks many times of dragons. It never speaks on any infant being baptized--never!!

No not really.

Yes really. I didn't have to go to the Book of Revelation to make my point. The words "dragon" or "dragons" are used 35 times in the Bible. The instance of an infant being baptized in not used once! My case is not made from silence. Yours is.

Your argument is made from flawed logic.

No flawed logic. You can't make an argument from silence. It is your logic that is flawed. Tell me did Mary "assume" into heaven in a spaceship? It is an argument from silence? Both the assumption and how she was assumed are just plain superstition and silliness.

How many times must I say that I'm not supporting the Assumption of Mary but equally if they can't argue from silence, neither can we argue from silence.

To argue from a negative is illogical.

Not necissarily after all Enoch was assumed into heaven and so was Elijah and I just gave a good reason for Mary to not be here either.

God took Enoch.
Elijah went up in a chariot.
Those were special circumstances that we know about that the Bible speaks about specifically. It does not tell us about Mary. You cannot argue from a negative. That is illogical. Furthermore you cannot argue from silence. That also is illogical. You strike out on those two counts. The third is, that it is totally superstitious and a myth. It is as mythical as the beliefs of the Hindus. That is strike three. You are out.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wong. Thinkingstuff doesn't defend the Catholic position. He states it CORRECTLY. Most posters on this board don't have a clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Seeing how Catholics are not allowed on this board to defend their positions, Thinkingstuff states it CORRECTLY. When he does this you accuse him of being a 'closet Catholic'.

You cannot state it more correctly than I have done as I quoted it directly from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thinkingstuff was not stating it, he was defending it by arguing that the scriptures provide no precepts or principles that contradict it. I demonstrated the Scriptures do in fact contradict the presumption of her assumption as stated and defended by Rome and gave the Catholic Catechism as the proper defense by Rome for this unbiblical dogma.

He argued that the Biblical cases of Enoch and Elijah gave a Biblical premise for the assumption of Mary because in his mind the I Corinthians 15 passage does not apply to Enoch or Elijah and therefore cannot apply to Mary's assumption.

I charged his interpretation to be ASSUMPTION as the scriptures nowhere state that either Enoch or Elijah were given glorified bodies any more than Moses was given a glorified body and therefore there is no basis for exception to the I Cor. 15 passage. However, if you could use SCRIPTURE to make such a case for Elijah, Enoch and Moses it would be an exception because of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for these three specific cases but no scriptural support for Mary can be cited. Hence, HOT AIR is the only support.

Last, the Roman Catholic REASONS given to support such an assumption by Mary are clearly ANTI-Biblical which demonstrates it is a FALSE DOCTRINE of men contrary to both the precepts and principles of Scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

God took Enoch.
Elijah went up in a chariot.
Those were special circumstances that we know about that the Bible speaks about specifically. It does not tell us about Mary. You cannot argue from a negative. That is illogical. Furthermore you cannot argue from silence. That also is illogical. You strike out on those two counts. The third is, that it is totally superstitious and a myth. It is as mythical as the beliefs of the Hindus. That is strike three. You are out.

You are arguing from silence as much as a Catholic. Attacking the Assumption is from a perspective of silence. Just like support comes from silence. My point was at least they have a premise with the assumption and can point to enoch and elijah.

As far as mythological beliefs your the one that believes in dragons. I don't. However, I think Hindus do believe in dragons. And just because the KJV uses the term Dragons and Unicorns doesn't mean those mythological creatures are real. Jackels are dogs and wild dogs are dogs they are not dinosaurs. If you want to argue Leviathan is a dinosaur then you may have a case but not with dragons because it is not only a mythological creatures but one that has a symbolic use. So the strikes are yours not mine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are arguing from silence as much as a Catholic. Attacking the Assumption is from a perspective of silence. Just like support comes from silence. My point was at least they have a premise with the assumption and can point to enoch and elijah.

As far as mythological beliefs your the one that believes in dragons. I don't. However, I think Hindus do believe in dragons. And just because the KJV uses the term Dragons and Unicorns doesn't mean those mythological creatures are real. Jackels are dogs and wild dogs are dogs they are not dinosaurs. If you want to argue Leviathan is a dinosaur then you may have a case but not with dragons because it is not only a mythological creatures but one that has a symbolic use. So the strikes are yours not mine.

He is not arguing from silence concerning Elijah and Enoch but from evidence provided by the Scriptures. There is no scriptural evidence relating to the presumptive assumption of Mary - period. One may argue about the information given in the Scriptures about Elijah and Enoch and their departures from earth how they relate to other scriptural information or precepts and principles but the scriptures provide NOTHING about Mary's departure from earth, predictive or otherwise.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He is not arguing from silence concerning Elijah and Enoch but from evidence provided by the Scriptures. There is no scriptural evidence relating to the presumptive assumption of Mary - period. One may argue about the information given in the Scriptures about Elijah and Enoch and their departures from earth how they relate to other scriptural information or precepts and principles but the scriptures provide NOTHING about Mary's departure from earth, predictive or otherwise.

There is nothing from scriptures arguing against it either. Which is my point.

 

[DHK]

There is nothing from scriptures arguing against it either. Which is my point.

You don't have a point.
1. You argue from a negative. You can't prove a negative.
2. You argue from silence. You can't prove anything from silence.
3. Your argument lies in the realm of metaphysical. That means it has no facts to support it. It is to be believed by blind faith, not faith supported by fact. It is the same faith that the Hindu requires to believe that the Ganges River will wash away your sins.

Thus your man-made doctrine, which it is, falls on these points.
So does purgatory, infant baptism, limbo, confession of sins to a priest, the various doctrines relating to Mariolatry, praying to the dead, idolatry, and so many more.

The Assumption of Mary wasn't even officially recognized by the RCC until 1950. That fact alone should tell you something.

 

[annsni]

I believe that Mary remarried and had many children. I also believe she ran a Starbucks.

Hey, the Bible doesn't say that she didn't so we can't say that she didn't either. :laugh:

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is nothing from scriptures arguing against it either. Which is my point.

Which means you have no point! You used SCRIPTURES to demonstrate that you might possibly have a SCRIPTURAL exception against the SCRIPTURAL general principle stated in the I Corinthians 15 passage but then you make a giant LEAP from scripture to NOTHING but presumption to argue that the non-scriptural account of the assumption of Mary may be an exception to the same scriptural general rule. Hence, your basis for argumentation has shifted from scripture to interpet scripture unto tradition to interpet scripture. This is the modus operandi of Roman hermeneutics to defend all of its non-scriptural traditions.

However, like infant baptism, Cardinals, papal infalibilty when speaking ex-cathreda, the presumptuous false tradition of the assumption of Mary is known by its fruits - or the reasons given by Rome to support it and defend it.

I have dealt with Roman Catholics long enough to know their method of defending unbiblical traditions as dogma. They first take the scriptures that would either repudiate their traditions either in precept or in principle and turn other scriptures against those precepts or principles, thus elminating the Scriptures as final authority and conclude it does not contradict the scriptures therefore that gives it a basis to be regarded as doctrine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The immaculate conception of Mary is used by Rome as supportive argument in its defense of the assumption of Mary. They believe because she was redeemed from birth and kept from committing any personal sin throughout her life time that this made her worthy in part for sharing in the resurrection/glorification with her Son because she was to be raised as "Queen of heaven OVER ALL THINGS" (Catechism of the Catholic Church - 966).

Where is this found in Scripture? The same place the assumption of Mary is found in Scripture. The idea that all of this presumptive dogma (immaculate conception and assumption and co-redemptrix) is the basis for her to rise to the level of "QUEEN OF HEAVEN OVER ALL THINGS" is simply astounding.

Surely, such a highly exalted position among heavenly creatures could not go unnoticed by God in all of the the scriptures as this is paramount not merely as co-redemptrix but a co-ruler with Christ.

 

[DHK]

I believe that Mary remarried and had many children. I also believe she ran a Starbucks.

Hey, the Bible doesn't say that she didn't so we can't say that she didn't either. :laugh:

I don't know about the Starbucks (the Ethiopians discovered it a few centuries ago), but as for children she did have many!

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

 

[1Tim115]

The immaculate conception of Mary is used by Rome as supportive argument in its defense of the assumption of Mary. They believe because she was redeemed from birth and kept from committing any personal sin throughout her life time that this made her worthy in part for sharing in the resurrection/glorification with her Son because she was to be raised as "Queen of heaven OVER ALL THINGS" (Catechism of the Catholic Church - 966).

Where is this found in Scripture? The same place the assumption of Mary is found in Scripture. The idea that all of this presumptive dogma (immaculate conception and assumption and co-redemptrix) is the basis for her to rise to the level of "QUEEN OF HEAVEN OVER ALL THINGS" is simply astounding.

Surely, such a highly exalted position among heavenly creatures could not go unnoticed by God in all of the the scriptures as this is paramount not merely as co-redemptrix but a co-ruler with Christ.

I'll go with this too (even though my original post is long since hijacked). What is the answer from our Roman Church friends? "Where is this found in Scripture?"

 

[Zenas]

Ok lets look, And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. In other words appearing in glory does not mean their new resurrected "glorified" bodies . Steven when being killed said" "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Not my body! Steven knew that "as Paul" that absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. To be present with the Lord is to be "in Glory" with Him. Only later at Christ apperaing will the great resurrection happen and the saints of God will get their new resurrected "glorified" bodies. Being "in glory" is where the souls of all born again believers go untill the Lord returns and the dead in Christ will rise "new resurected bodies". But for now Jesus has first place in all things. Now in Colossians this pasage reiterates what is taught in 1Corinthians 15:20-23 ... Colossians 1:18 "He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the FIRSTborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have FIRST PLACE in everything."

So you think they were spirits, even though Peter, James and John saw them clearly, even though scripture says they were appearing in glory. That's really a stretch, actually a hilarious stretch that goes completely outside what the Bible says, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, if you believe this, you should be embarrassed to assert that Mary could not have been assumed.

 

[Zenas]

"Appearing in glory" does not mean they had their resurrected bodies.
First remember that Moses did die. He went up to a mount and God buried him. His body, no doubt went through the natural process of decay like all others. He was buried by God himself.

At that time Jesus had not died, been buried, risen from the dead, or re-appeared in a resurrected body to his disciples. They did not know what a resurrected body looked like. Jesus appearance shone very brightly. Moses and Elijah appeared but it was not in total bodily form. Perhaps it was in the same way that Samuel appeared to Saul. Remember they didn't touch them; they only saw them. "And when they looked up again, they were gone."

The "body" as it were was temporary. We don't know much about it. And we won't until we get to heaven. This we do know; it wasn't their resurrection bodies. The resurrection has not happened yet. Only Christ has risen from the dead.

Where does it say these men did not appear in total bodily form? Where does it say the body as it were was temporary? And what is so incredible about someone in total bodily form disappearing? Go back and read the accounts of Christ after the resurrection.

 

[Zenas]

It may have been mentioned already but, when God changes His creation from one thing to another everyone can see, taste, smell, or observe the change through at least one of the senses. That is a physical change fact of God. Could you provide some example of physical change from God that is not detectable? Please refrain from fables from men, and use scripture.

And this is your theme in Post No. 1. I would simply ask you to read Post No. 2, and will add that the gospel writers would often add a parenthetical explaining what Jesus really meant when He spoke of things that were confusing to the people. However, there were no such parenthetical explanations concerning the Eucharist.

 

[Zenas]

I'll go with this too (even though my original post is long since hijacked). What is the answer from our Roman Church friends? "Where is this found in Scripture?"

I don't understand. If it's not found in Scripture you don't believe it. You say we can't draw any conclusions from silence. Yet when it is found in Scripture, and even in all four gospels plus 1 Corinthians, you reject it and say it is metaphorical. You sound like the generation of Jesus, about whom He said:

They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.

 

[DHK]

And this is your theme in Post No. 1. I would simply ask you to read Post No. 2, and will add that the gospel writers would often add a parenthetical explaining what Jesus really meant when He spoke of things that were confusing to the people. However, there were no such parenthetical explanations concerning the Eucharist.

There were no parenthetical explanations concerning the Eucharist,
First, because there is no such thing as "Eucharist" in the Bible, the entire conversation ought to be rendered moot.
Second, concerning the elements of the Communion Table, they are purely symbolic as Jesus meant them to be. Throughout the entire chapter He spoke in metaphors. It is odd that you can recognize some metaphors and not others.
Jesus said "I am the door." Is it a metaphor, or is it literal as the RCC believes the "Eucharist" to be? I believe the answer is obvious to all.
The same is true when he says:
I am the bread of life. A loaf perhaps? What was Christ saying?
He was using metaphors, as we, as well as parables.
Here is what he specifically says:

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

The Roman Catholics that I know fall into that category.

 

[DHK]

Where does it say these men did not appear in total bodily form? Where does it say the body as it were was temporary? And what is so incredible about someone in total bodily form disappearing? Go back and read the accounts of Christ after the resurrection.

Where does it say they did?

A description of Jesus:
Matthew 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
--No resurrection body here. But he was different.
I expect the same would hold true for Elijah and Moses.
Give proof that Moses was raised from the dead. Moses was buried. Nowhere in the Scripture does it say he arose from the dead.

The whole event was supernatural. God is able to do the supernatural and he did without violating that which is written in His Word.