New survey: Only one-third of Catholics believe in Real Presence

OK

 

I guess my point is they must show why all of a sudden a statement, made in the exact same manner as the other statements, should be taken literally and not the others.

 

Nonesense. They were only condemned by papal antichrist, and murdered in thousands of different ways. The popes had no authhority to do that, Scripture says he would be drunk with the blood of the saints. Rome said it does not persecute saints, only heretics and she has a perfect right to do that. She would do that again if she had a chance.

"Ours is a strangely delicate century.
Does it belive the ashes of the stake are completely cold? That there is no small spark there to light a solitary torch. The foolish ones, by calling us Jesuits, They think to cover us with infamy! But these Jesuits are reserving for them a censure. A gag and fire. And one day they will master their masters."

Roothaan
One time General of the Jesuits.


​

 

WRONG.

John 6:52 states explicitly that His followers were grumbling among themselves saying:
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

In verse 60, they said:
“This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

In verse 66, we are told that that many of His disciples LEFT him that day and returned to their former way of life.

They would NOT have left because of a metaphor. They believed what He said because He meant it.

After those first Protestants walked away, did Jesus stop them to say, “You guys are mistaken! I was speaking metaphorically!”?? NO.

He turned to the Twelve and said, “Do you ALSO want to leave”.

NO explanation about “symbols” or “metaphors” to His inner circle as He ALWAYS did.

Jesus meant what He said – and they simply couldn’t handle it – just like the Protestants of today . . .

 

Luke 1:17 states explicitly that John the Baptist was coming in the "Spirit and power of Elijah". - so neither one lied.

Nice try . . .

 

Him not explaining that it is symbolic has nothing to do with anything. But, he was CLEARLY talking about his death and partaking of what his death (and resurrection) would accomplish as the sacrifice. He is not saying "eat me."

 

Uhhhhhh, wrong.

The one who would be “drunk on the blood of the saints” is apostate Jerusalem, who was “in bed” with pagan Rome against the Early Church. This is why Isaiah says that the “faithful City“ had become a “harlot” (Isa. 1:21).

STUDY your Bible . . .

 

David you say because Jesus said Messiah was going to die......Where does he say that in John 6 ->1.

I said you gave no biblical answer. You just gave us GNOSTIC TRASH.

Give us the BIBLE VERSE from JOHN stop giving us the run around just because you are afraid.

 

" CLEARLY talking about his death "

Never mentions he was going to die. You OBVIOUSLY never read JOHN 6. I challenge you to find any source on the internet that agrees with your made up as you go along trash.


You can parallel from MATTHEW 16 when he does tell them. VS matthew 15 when he feeds the crowds.

No disciple leaves after Jesus reveals he has to suffer many things Peter objects to his dying, Jesus calls PETER SATAN.

Peter would have OBJECTED to Jesus saying he was going to die AT JOHN 6. He doesn't because he doesn't hint at all about dying.

Instead it happens later when Jesus calls him Satan for trying to stop it.

 

I'm the one running around? You guys are the ones that take everything as symbolic except this one thing and you can't even say why this one isn't symbolic and the others are.

 

From The City of the Seven Hills by H Grattan Guinness writen in the late 1800s A history of Rome in the form of a poem.

The Inquisition "arrested on suspicion, tortured till confession,
and then punished by fire." " Water, weights, fire, pulleys, screws
—all the apparatus by which the sinews could be strained without
cracking, the bones bruised without breaking, and the body racked
exquisitely without giving up the ghost—were put into operation."
"The period during which torture' could be inflicted from day to day
was unlimited in duration."

There followed a photo of the Inquisition building in Rome. Which did not show correcly when I tried to paste it.

THE INQUISITION, ROME.
The victims of the Inquisition were innumerable. The Inquisitor
Torquemada alone destroyed in eighteen years one hundred and
fourteen thousand four hundred and one. (Llorente, i. 280.)
When the Inquisition at Rome was opened, in the Revolution of
1848, ghastly human remains were found in its dungeons.
The Inquisitors still sit in the Inquisition at Rome week by week.
A veil of secrecy is drawn around the proceeilings of their tyrannical
tribunal.

 

Then when Jesus says a subject IS a predicate, he may or may not be metaphorical?

Also, to take a quote yourself, was Jesus joking when he said, Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven [Matthew 23:9]?

 

No - He wasn’t joking because, once again – He backs it up elsewhere.

In Matt. 23:9, Jesus says not to call any man “Father.” In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Absolutely NOT. He is telling us that no man is to be considered father above our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.

Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all: “They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi” (Matt 23:6-7).

Consider the following passages:
- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER " (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS " (1 Cor. 12:28).

 

You are telling us the symbol is his death. He doesn't reveal he will die till after where Peter objects.

Matthew 16

21From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

No where does Jesus hint at his having to die or any disciple objecting or leaving. They make quite clear their objection:

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Had Jesus given even a hint that he would die Peter would have objected on the spot which he does LATER when Jesus actually reveals it to them.

You are going to have to switch your stance on what he is being symbolic about.

 

Jesus had already been talking about his death in chapter 2. And notice he didn't come out and say it there either. Nor did he correct the people in their thinking.

 

Lets look at the verse.

19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Nothing there says they WILL destroy the temple or that he WILL rise. IF he would have said one day YOU WILL destroy this temple. That would have been a different matter. Notice none of the disciples throw a fit THEN, nor leave, nor object.

I'm asking you for scripture from JOHN 6 where he hints at his death. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANYTHING.

We know when he reveals he must die its when Peter objects to it.

 

Kill me and I will come back to life in three days.

YOU will kill me and I will come back to life in three days.

Those are two different statements they do not mean the same thing.

 

Ok, if you can't clearly understand John 2 is talking about Christ's death as well, by means of foreshadow, we have nothing further to discuss. You clearly are not interested in looking at Scripture but just holding on to vain traditions.

 

David all you have to do it point that the disciples are symbolically objecting to in JOHN 6

If you are saying the John 6 disciples are objecting to JOHN 2, well why is no one leaving him in JOHN 2? Did they just bottle it up for JOHN 6?

You got the easiest job in the world show us the JOHN 6 verse that says he is talking about his own death.

 

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here.

I am saying that just like in John 2 people did not understand what he meant in John 6. And, just like in John 2, in John 6 he did not correct their understanding.