Blasphemy Is:

[Yelsew]

Maybe they did. Christ turned water into wine. Is it such a stretch to believe in another miraculous change?

We have eye witness reports of the event where Jesus turned water into wine. It is reported that the miracle was witnessed by all who were in attendance at the wedding. "Eye witness reports" are the basis for every investigation by the catholic church into Miracles. Eye witness reports substantiated by thorough investigation are the basis for virtually every recorded miracle reverently held by the Catholic Church.

NOT ONE human eye-witness has ever reported "seeing" the bread and wine transubstantiate into real flesh and real blood, so there is no "miracle" to report or investigate.

ZAP! another myth dealt with!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
NOT ONE human eye-witness has ever reported "seeing" the bread and wine transubstantiate into real flesh and real blood, so there is no "miracle" to report or investigate.

As I understand it, transubstantiation means they are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same. Thus, the miracle would be one that could not be "seen" in the first place - in other words, being "seen" can be *evidence* of a miracle, but lack of being seen does not preclude a miracle.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.

 

[Kathryn]

We have eye witness reports of the event where Jesus turned water into wine. It is reported that the miracle was witnessed by all who were in attendance at the wedding. "Eye witness reports" are the basis for every investigation by the catholic church into Miracles. Eye witness reports substantiated by thorough investigation are the basis for virtually every recorded miracle reverently held by the Catholic Church.

NOT ONE human eye-witness has ever reported "seeing" the bread and wine transubstantiate into real flesh and real blood, so there is no "miracle" to report or investigate.

ZAP! another myth dealt with!

Yelsew:
Zap! You just denied the miracle of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Isn't that a sign of the anti-Christ?

Can't see the miracle, so it didn't happen. You are arguing with the arguments of the atheists. Doesn't help with contending for the Christian faith. You sink your own ship.

[ June 21, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

[Singer]

Yes Brian,


by Singer
We can rationalize it in our minds that it IS flesh and blood as a metaphor,
but it's still bread and wine. Why did the apostles not eat Jesus then..?

Maybe they did. Christ turned water into wine. Is it such a stretch to
believe in another miraculous change?

Guess my point is that they did NOT attack the person, Jesus and attempt
to eat his flesh. Also, why did Jesus not just offer his arm and blood instead
of bread and wine if the emblems were his actual body. The point is that they
did not consume Jesus' body but rather ate and drank the substitute items
"in remembrance" as you say.

It's a good point and one that plagues Catholics to remind them that salvation
was and is available (even before baptism) to any who will believe in the
propitiational life and death of Jesus. Thousands were saved prior to the founding
of the Catholic Church (RCC). Yes, it was catholic (small c) or universal and that
is the only meaning of the word. Catholic (capital C) is a proper noun and has no
more relation to the word ''catholic'' than does the word Methodist or Baptist.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Singer:
Guess my point is that they did NOT attack the person, Jesus and attempt to eat his flesh.
Also, why did Jesus not just offer his arm and blood instead of bread and wine if the emblems were his actual body. The point is that they did not consume Jesus' body but rather ate and drank the substitute items "in remembrance" as you say.

I imagine they did not "attack" him and attempt to eat him because of the difficulty of the saying: remember, many of his disciples left him over this issue, and I imagine the ones that remained were simply trying to understand how what he said could be true. So at the last supper, when Christ said of the bread and cup "this IS my body" and "this IS my blood", they could partake without attacking him.

Thousands were saved prior to the founding
of the Catholic Church (RCC). Yes, it was catholic (small c) or universal and that
is the only meaning of the word. Catholic (capital C) is a proper noun and has no
more relation to the word ''catholic'' than does the word Methodist or Baptist.

My point is, if Catholicism is the trunk of the tree, and "C"atholic is the label nailed to the tree a few inches off the ground, it doesn't mean the trunk starts at the label. It's just a name, an identifier of something *already in existence*. Do you believe the Trinity popped into existence the first time the word "Trinity" was used? Of course not.

 

[Singer]

My point is, if Catholicism is the trunk of the tree...............

I hope you meant to say "catholicism" (small c), and then I would agree with the
rest of your post. Catholicism (the denomination) is not the trunk and I think you
agree with that. On the other hand, catholicism (universal body of believers) could
be considered the trunk.

What perplexes hardcore Catholics is the fact that people were being saved through
their "believing on me" (Jesus), prior to the founding of Catholicism (the denomination).
We are still instructed to "believe on me" or "believe in me" (Jesus) for salvation when
Catholicism is saying there is no salvation outside of their church; with their subsequent
teaching that "believing" means to follow the denomination that they say Jesus established
while here. They give proof in the form of "If you love me; obey my commandments", and
they point to scripture such as "there is one Lord; one faith" etc. Any rational thinking
individual can easily see this is not pointing to a branch off the trunk.

That's the old "The trunk starts at the branch" syndrome which is wrong; making
the claims of Catholicism wrong.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Singer:
What perplexes hardcore Catholics is the fact that people were being saved through
their "believing on me" (Jesus), prior to the founding of Catholicism (the denomination).

What perplexes me is that you think that perplexes Catholics. Again, the Catholic church sees their church going right back to Christ, even though the *label* didn't exist yet.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Singer,

As C.S. Lewis said, "Words mean things," and once we take away the meaning of a word or redefine that meaning, then there is no use in still using that word.

You wrote, "On the other hand, catholicism (universal body of believers) could be considered the trunk."

The renowned Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

The word, from the beginning of its usage, has meant to signify the visible Catholic Church as distinct from heretical congregations.

To redefine "Catholic" as "all true believers irregardless of the sect they fall within" is essentially to no longer regard "Catholic" as a word or to alter its historic definition.

Why are you intent on doing so? Why not allow for Catholics to call themselves such and for you to call yourself a non-Catholic, remaining faithful to the historic usage of the title?

Secular sources are clear that the Roman Catholic Church is the self-same Catholic Church as spoken of by the Church Fathers. For example:

"By A. D. 100, ... Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only 'true faith'. The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal." (The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels {Vintage Books 1994})

 

[Singer]

What perplexes me is that you think that perplexes Catholics. Again,
the Catholic church sees their church going right back to Christ, even
though the *label* didn't exist yet.


Yes they do. I was also born into a cult that saw their church as stemming
directly from Jesus....with names like "The Truth", "The Way" and "The Gospel"
How could we be wrong ? We were not wrong in identifying the plan of salvation
as being "whosoever believes in me(Jesus) shall never die" , but we were wrong
in thinking our system / sect / denomination was the only source through which
God could delegate eternal life. Confession with the mouth and belief in the heart
is STILL what leads to salvation whether it be delivered through the Catholic
church, "The Way", or through any number of protestant denominations.

The fact that Catholics see the pope as the solitary instrument of authority, or whether
"The Truth" considers their gatherings the only way to heaven, or whether Mormons
believe that Jos. Smith had THE revelation..............does not stop the heartfelt
seeker of eternal life from obtaining forgiveness and salvation.

You're right that the label (Catholic) did not exist yet. Old Testament times produced
salvation and thousands received salvation at the hands of Jesus' preaching and
of that by the apostles in various churches. How do Catholics cover for that
enigma. Catholics have explained to me that it is by "salvation by desire" that accounts
for that (Intending to join the Catholic Church but never quite getting around to it)..!!

You may have missed the "caveman's cart" discussions recently whereas it would be
absurd to say that the caveman's cart was the forerunner of the present day Ford.

It would also be absurd to make the claim that in pre-Catholic times, people were saved
by "salvation by desire" (That they would have become Catholic if given the chance).

Yes it perplexes them...........because they can't answer it.

There are at all times; members leaving and members joining the Catholic Church and
other exclusive cults who make preposterous claims of exclusive rights to administer
salvation. Neither "The Way" nor Catholicism entertains doctrine that would allow them
to claim salvation Now . Imagine that !!! They say there is no salvation Outside
of the Catholic Church, yet they make no claim of salvation Within the church.

"The Way" also taught that heresy and; like Catholicism, consequently has to contend
with members who are locked into a system of works and fear for their souls, trusting
in their uniqueness, finding solace in their leaders who put doctrines of man ahead of
mere faith in the risen savior; all the while striving to obtain perfection and
righteousness that God has identified as "filthy rags".

 

[3AngelsMom]

What I don't get is how people can call me a cult member because I go to church on Saturday, and don't eat pork, believe in Soul Sleep, and Anhiliation, but the Catholics all over the world are respected and some even revered!

Has anyone EVER heard of an SDA member or pastor claiming that you MUST be an SDA member in order to be saved?

NEVER.

And even though the CORE of our message is to put your trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for Salvation, we are ridiculed, and called 'cult' or 'sect' or worse 'not even Christians'!!!

What's the catch?

The CC teaches that there is no salvation outside of the CC. Yet there are loopholes.

Jesus didn't give any loopholes.

There is ONE WAY to heaven.

And I'm sorry folks, but it ain't determined by the sign in the grass in front of your temple, synagogue, sanctuary, mosque, chapel, or fellowship hall!

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you WILL be saved!

It is THAT simple.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[Singer]

Carson,

To redefine "Catholic" as "all true believers irregardless of the sect
they fall within" is essentially to no longer regard "Catholic" as a word
or to alter its historic definition.

Why are you intent on doing so? Why not allow for Catholics to call
themselves such and for you to call yourself a non-Catholic, remaining
faithful to the historic usage of the title?

Wouldn't you agree that the word ''catholic'' originally had a meaning prior to
the onset of Catholicism that could have been attached to any sect? The group
of believers who actually did so happened to be those we know as present day
Catholics of course. Their doing so did not segregate their faith as being superior
to the faith of others who existed at the time and who believed in the Gospel
message also. Catholicism has developed over time..........for one can point to a
time in history when the Catholic Church did not exist. (Yet the plan of salvation
existed from the foundation of the world). How could Catholicism claim a monopoly
on such when God's original plan did not even indicate a group that would be given
competitive advantage...?

In light of history, Catholicism had a founding by man that can be dated, yet the
plan of salvation and the savior that was revealed in the form of Jesus was
proclaimed in the Old Testament. "from the foundation of the world".

The word Jesus appears in the bible nearly 1000 times and it is very clear to
an unbiased reader just what conducts salvation. "Believe on" and "believe in" get the
emphasis. It is only preposterous to suppose that God was mounting a
trick plan to later reveal a church to lead the way as you imply. The plan of
salvation was already set in God's mind and it was prophesied throughout the
Old Testament as well as by the obvious truths revealed by John the Baptist
and New Testament writers.


Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one
church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members
of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he
claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal."

Again, you're quoting Catholics to give proof of Catholicism. I would expect
Mormon truths to refer to Mormon writings etc. etc. If you were to quote the
powers that prevailed prior to the advance of Catholicism, you'd find that there
is no mention of a superpower church that will lead the way. The plan of
salvation was already complete when Irenaeus and other Catholics began to
rewrite the gospel. Matthew 16:18 is hardly a reason to contort the gospel
message.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Singer,

Wouldn't you agree that the word ''catholic'' originally had a meaning prior to the onset of Catholicism that could have been attached to any sect?

Absolutely not, for the reasons that I gave above.

 

[3AngelsMom]

The term catholic was placed on the CC by the CC. Funny to me, however, is the fact that the CC was NOT the universal church, never has been, never will be. There have ALWAYS been people who didn't want to play along. The French may have stopped the CC from killing people, but that doesn't mean that it stopped it from controlling them.

There has ALWAYS been Christians who did NOT want to be part of the CC. As long as there is ONE soul that does not join in, the CC is just 'playing' like they are universal.

They are not.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[Carson Weber]

You're right on Kelly. There have been heretics apart from the Church universal from the get go. In the New Testament, Paul spends much effort in refuting the Judaizers. In the Early Church, we find the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Docetists, the Gnostics, the Monophysites, the Arians, etc.

Pray tell, of which of the above sects are the true believers? The Ebionites? The Marcionites? The Docetists? The Gnostics? The Monophysites? This list isn't exhaustive, perhaps you would like to pick another historical sect from the first two centuries of Christianity that you would like to label as the pristine faith? Now, come, let's not make up our sects. Pick one in the history books.

 

[Singer]

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Tell me Carson; were these people Catholic and were they saved ?

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
You're right on Kelly. There have been heretics apart from the Church universal from the get go. In the New Testament, Paul spends much effort in refuting the Judaizers. In the Early Church, we find the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Docetists, the Gnostics, the Monophysites, the Arians, etc.

Pray tell, of which of the above sects are the true believers? The Ebionites? The Marcionites? The Docetists? The Gnostics? The Monophysites? This list isn't exhaustive, perhaps you would like to pick another historical sect from the first two centuries of Christianity that you would like to label as the pristine faith? Now, come, let's not make up our sects. Pick one in the history books.

Visogoths.

Met one lately?

 

[Singer]

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Tell me Carson; were these people Catholic and were they saved ?

 

[Singer]

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Tell me Carson; were these people Catholic and were they saved ?

*Would like to have your comments when you return.

 

[Carson Weber]

Yes, Singer, they were Catholic and their salvation is dependent upon whether they remained in grace for the remainder of their transitory lives. I mean, considering that their baptism is the result of listening to the first catechetical sermon preached by the first vicar of Jesus Christ, the first pope, I would say that places them right in the bosom of the "Catholic" Church.

 

[Singer]

Yes, Singer, they were Catholic and their salvation is dependent upon
whether they remained in grace for the remainder of their transitory lives.
I mean, considering that their baptism is the result of listening to the first
catechetical sermon preached by the first vicar of Jesus Christ, the first pope,
I would say that places them right in the bosom of the "Catholic" Church

I really wish you hadn't answered that way, Carson. I actually had more
respect for Catholicism before I knew what all you guys believe. Oh my gosh....
you really believe they were Catholic !!! For that to be so and for Peter to be
the first [Catholic] Pope, then you'd surely also have to claim that Jesus was a
Catholic also...Am I right ..? Afterall, He would not have been anything else BUT,
as He came to earth to establish the Catholic Church (as the RCC teaches). To
carry it a bit further, Jesus is God and Catholics acknowledge that....so would you
also say that God himself (the Creator of Heaven and Earth ) was a Catholic...?