Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[mailmandan]

I already DID-where Jesus introduced Communion, He picked up some bread & some drink that was already there, & called them His flesh & blood-while they remained bread & drink, with Jesus having no wounds, missing flesh, etc. And, He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

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.

 

[Adonia]

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.

Not this God. Jesus's desire was to leave a literal part of Himself for the faithful to have a true communion with Him. Not just spiritually did He leave Himself, but also physically. So, by the work of the Holy Spirit the transformation comes about under the basics of life which includes water, bread and wine.

With all of your claims under your false and failed biblical exegesis, this is what has been taught through all of Christendom from the very beginning, with only you folks coming to a different conclusion centuries down the line.

You can't change the historical reality of this, you can only come up with excuse after excuse to justify your continued rejection of orthodox Christian thought.

 

[Adonia]

Face it. Roman Catholicism has it wrong.

Evidently as do our Eastern Orthodox brothers, (including the Russians, Greeks and all the other Slavic Christian faith traditions), and many mainline Protestant traditions. So, they were all wrong for this teaching that was the passed down from generation to generation until you folks came along.

Remember, that was the first and constant teaching through all the ages, it's only you folks who came up with a contrary one sometime after the year 1500. I'm going with first and earliest teaching, thank you very much!

 

[Hollow Man]

Your hypocrisy is matched only by your woeful-ignorance of history . . .

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

 

[Hollow Man]

Then do us a favor and produce ONE SINGLE Early Church teaching to that effect.

Show me ONE writing from the Early Church that agrees with the Protestant assertion that the Eucharist was merely symbolic.

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

Do that - and I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

What makes you think we would take you?

 

[Hollow Man]

Of course you do.
To agree with me would mean leaving your sect and becoming Catholic.

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.

 

[Adonia]

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.

Now seriously, which is the cult here - the long established Church or the one that sprang from one man's mind? Brother, you are on shaky ground with the Holy Spirit here. If we are correct the Holy Spirit is intimately involved with the Catholic church, so you might be committing the one unpardonable sin which the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit with that comparison. So, why are you taking a chance with your immortal soul?

 

[Particular]

Evidently as do our Eastern Orthodox brothers, (including the Russians, Greeks and all the other Slavic Christian faith traditions), and many mainline Protestant traditions. So, they were all wrong for this teaching that was the passed down from generation to generation until you folks came along.

Remember, that was the first and constant teaching through all the ages, it's only you folks who came up with a contrary one sometime after the year 1500. I'm going with first and earliest teaching, thank you very much!

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.

 

[Hollow Man]

Now seriously, which is the cult here - the long established Church or the one that sprang from one man's mind?

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

Brother, you are on shaky ground with the Holy Spirit here. If we are correct the Holy Spirit is intimately involved with the Catholic church, so you might be committing the one unpardonable sin which the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit with that comparison. So, why are you taking a chance with your immortal soul?

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.

 

[robycop3]

You just committed the fallacy of the argument from silence. your fallacy is fatal to you case because it is reinforced by the explicitly stated consensus of the early church that is not countered by a single early church interpretation explicitly teaching teaching that Communion is a merely symbolic act. And of course, your claim is also decisively refuted by John 6:55-57

"For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them....whoever EATS ME shall live because of me."

Here are the 4 points your bias prevents you from getting:
(1) Jesus commands His disciples not to eat the bread but to "eat me."
(2) Jesus teaches not that Communion bread and wine are real food and drink, but that his flesh and blood are real food and drink.
(3) Jesus teaches that if you "eat me," you will live (by implication eternally). It is the Real Presence of Christ in the act of consumption, not the nutritional value of the bread, that guarantees eternal life!
(4) The mass exodus of His disciples occurs not because of Jesus' messianic sacrifice, but because the offended disciples recognize that Jesus is teaching what for them is the grotesque doctrine of Real Presence in the sacramental act! If Communion was a merely symbolic act for Jesus, He would have been clear about that so that he could retain all those offended disciples and not mislead all those early Church Fathers who assume that He said what He meant and meant what He said!

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.)

 

[robycop3]

Not this God. Jesus's desire was to leave a literal part of Himself for the faithful to have a true communion with Him. Not just spiritually did He leave Himself, but also physically. So, by the work of the Holy Spirit the transformation comes about under the basics of life which includes water, bread and wine.

With all of your claims under your false and failed biblical exegesis, this is what has been taught through all of Christendom from the very beginning, with only you folks coming to a different conclusion centuries down the line.

You can't change the historical reality of this, you can only come up with excuse after excuse to justify your continued rejection of orthodox Christian thought.

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 !

 

[MarysSon]

Funny how people who could read Greek found monks burning the Bible because they were too ignorant to know what was written on the pages.
God has kept his word for us. No thanks to Rome.

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).

 

[MarysSon]

I already DID-where Jesus introduced Communion, He picked up some bread & some drink that was already there, & called them His flesh & blood-while they remained bread & drink, with Jesus having no wounds, missing flesh, etc. And, He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

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

STUDY your Bible . . .

 

[37818]

Ummmmm, the Anabaptists or “RE-Baptizers” were a heretical sect.,

If you want to align yourself with THEM – be my guest. However – YOUR Baptist sect can only trace its origins back to John Smyth in 1606. Besides – the Anabaptists denied Sola Fide

Just because the word “baptist” can be gleaned from the longer word “Anabaptist” – doesn’t mean thek Baptist sect goes back that far. The nonsense you’re trying to push here originated in the 20th century book, Trail of Blood by Baptist pastor James M. Carroll.

Nice try, though . . .

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.

 

[Particular]

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).

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

 

[MarysSon]

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

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.

What makes you think we would take you?

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

You need to be more Christlike . . .

 

[MarysSon]

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.

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.

 

[MarysSon]

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

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).

 

[Particular]

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.

 

[MarysSon]

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 . . .