Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

Amen! Jesus was not speaking of literally eating flesh and literally drinking blood (cannibalism) but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Jesus, as He makes it clear by repeating the same truths in metaphoric and plain language below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes in Me has everlasting life" is equivalent to "he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" because the end result is the same, "has everlasting/eternal life." John 6 does not support the mystical Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Jesus is the Bread of Life and we eat and drink of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him unto salvation. Jesus explains the sense of the passage when He said - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Bread represents sustenance. That which is essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance (bread of life) necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

 

Fortunately for you, the moderators will ignore your personal attacks.

 

It's very telling that you insist on examples of man's traditions, and not examples from Biblical teaching.

What makes you think we would take you?

 

When I was a kid, I accidentally fell into an open septic tank some men were working on. I won't go back to the Catholic cult for the same reason I won't jump back into a septic tank. They both stink and they're both full of the same thing.

 

This is a line I have heard.
What we know is that the State Controlled Churches have taught that one eats the flesh of Jesus and drinks his blood as a means of attaining grace. That is consistent with a system based on legalism and control in a power politics world. It is not consistent with the Bible, however.
Therefore, bad traditions are bad, no matter how you dress them up.
Added to this is the fact that the early Christians that are quoted all come from extant documents that are centuries after the writer lived and the number of documents are few. This means that we have to discern whether the original writer actually said those words or whether someone in the State Controlled Church added material to the original. Since the documents are few and the extant material is centuries after the original author, we cannot be definitive with what we read. This is in contrast to the Bible where we have thousands upon thousands of documents that can be traced on a tree to see when and where additions have been made by scribes. Look at Mark 16 and note that the last half of the chapter may not have been in the original document.
So, I take your tradition argument with a grain of salt and instead I stand upon the fact that Jesus was using figurative language in his conversation with the disciples in the upper room.

 

The Catholic cult's numerous heresies shows it to be the cult.

First of all, pointing out the numerous heresies and doctrines of demons of the Catholic cult isn't blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Second, by definition, a born again person cannot commit that particular sin.

I'm not taking any chances with my soul. My salvation is Christ's to keep and He is trustworthy, unlike your cult.

 

Your "reasoning' is rather silly.

At the first "communion", did Jesus cut off a piece of Himself, slice it into fragments, & pass it to His disciples to eat? Did He collect His blood from that wound & pass it around to be drunk? Or did He pick up some bread and a cup of drink, which were already there, bless them, & pass them around for consumption, during which time they remained bread & drink ?

(Remember, this event occurred AFTER THE events of John 6:55-56.)

 

I saw a recording of an RC communion where slices of bread was used insteada wafers. When the people ate the bread, it remained bread, simple as THAT !

 

If it weren’t for the Catholic Church and those monks – you wouldn’t have a Bible.

It was THEIR painstaking care and diligent work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that preserved the Scriptures for us.

Thank GOD He kept His promise to guide His Church to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

 

And what part of "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood do you NOT understand??

STUDY your Bible . . .

 

You are mistaken in your thinking. And I am not going to write a book here.
The Hosius' quote found in Carroll's book was not from Carroll, but give by Clarence Walker in his introduction to the book, "'Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.' (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)"
And that was not original quote or reference. How it evolved to that form I do note know. I gave you the source of an orginal quote. Anabaptists, as such, existed in the 4th century is in evidence. The tenet of the Baptist faith is to be New Teatament in beliefs and practice. The New Testament is in fact the actual handed down Apostolic authority for the original Christian faith.

 

Sure we would. God would have used a different route. Read Esther sometime to see what I mean.

 

Ummmmmmm, I already gave you Biblical examples.
Let’s review . . .

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that you Protestants claim is only a symbol.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

The usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus used hyperbole to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

That’s exactly the type of response I would expect from somebody like YOU.

You need to be more Christlike . . .

 

Not good enough.

Anybody can claim that their group goes back to the early centuries of the Church. You can align yourself with all sorts of early heretic groups. However - the plain fact is that the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church with an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.

YOUR sect can’t trace itself back in an unbroken line.

Game over.

 

But He DIDN'T.
He used His Church to preserve the Scriptures.

His Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

He used human beings of his choice. As I pointed out, some ignorant monks were found burning the Greek manuscripts.
You sadly confuse God's church as being the State Controlled Church of Rome.

 

Again with the asinine “State Controlled” moniker.

Any chance of you ever providing evidence as to which state??

I didn’t think so . . .

As for your claim and “some” monks burned Scripture – EVIDENCE, please.
Names??
Dates??
Anything??

I can just as easily make an equally-impotent claim that “some” Baptists were involved in the JFK assassination . . .