Sincere question for catholics.

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Matt --

I have to assume that in English courts - asking for proof of Point-A only to find that all you get is deafening silence and then something about Point-B instead -- is an acceptable form of "communication".

But in this case it is not a compelling form of debate. You STILL have to respond to point-A.

I listed 8 "obvious" points from the chapter of John 6.

You gave a long post that never said anything about "denying them" though you claimed that those sources DO deny these blatantly obvious points.

So please SHOW them denying any one of those 8 points or admit that they do not.

I am still waiting.

So far you only SHOW that Catholics believe their own story "anyway" as do some non-Catholic groups. I never disputed that point.

But you CLAIMED that they actually denied the obvious points. That you have yet to SHOW.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob, it is blatantly obvious and I'm not sure how many different ways I have to spell this out to you: if they agreed with your 8 points on the passage, they would have reached the same Zwingliist conclusion as you. But they didn't, so they don't agree with your 8 points.

I rest my case

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Apparently it is easier for you to sidestep the point than to address it.

I will post it "yet again".

And I will remind you that repsonding with "subject - B" when I explicitly gave a list for "A" is not " a response to A".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here they are "again".

Count them - ONE through EIGHT.

NOT A SINGLE one responded to by Matt's post.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here is that list of "incredibly obvious" points again.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. Christ did NOT say “some day at some future time my flesh WILL become food”. He claimed that the bread ALREADY came down out of heaven.
#2. No one “bites Christ” in John 6.
#3. The faithLESS disciples are the only ones with the too-literal view.
#4. The FaithFULL disciples focus on the WORDS of Christ “YOU have the WORDS of LIFE”
#5. Christ summarized His OWN point saying that they should NOT focus on “literal flesh for it is worthless! My WORDs are spirit and are life”.
#6. Christ rebukes HIS disciples for taking the symbol of bread TOO literally and not seeing it as meaning “teaching” in Matt 16. No rebuke is given for their not “biting Him” in John 6.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Matt 16
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

.

#7. Christ relies on the previous teaching of Moses regarding the “bread that came down” out of heaven.

Deut 8:2-3 "God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3“He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

#8. HAD the disciples all rushed Christ and obediently taken each one – his bite… the gospel would have ended in John 6 on a very very “catholic” note – but not a Gospel one. </font>[/QUOTE]And as Matt claims -- these blatant, obvious and clear points are "denied" by the following groups...

Matt said
Then why do the ECFs, Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans et al disagree with you?

So here we "wait" some more - to see where the specific points listed bove are "denied" </font>[/QUOTE]So we "continue to wait" for a response to this LIST OF 8 points. "Where details actually matter".

 

[BobRyan]

Now while we "wait" some more for Matt to actually provide a direct proof for that direct challenge to the list of EIGHT "obvious and blatant points" -- one comment on the "Assumption" Matt makes.

He assumes that the points are SBVIOUSLY related to the CONCLUSION of the Eucharist-transubstantiation groups -- that they COULD not possibly "ADMIT" to the OBVIOUS points and STILL "believe in RC myths ANYWAY".

But "obviously" I claim that this is EXACTLY what they do since they never come out AGAINST these OBVIOUS and blatantly clear statements. (Because doing so is totally indefensible).

So they simply AVOID the pitfall of having to admit that they HAVE to agree with "the obvious" while "clinging to the RC myths ANYWAY" -- by being carefull not to comment on them.

How "instructive".

Of course if Matt wants to pony up some logic that actually rejects "The obvious" -- in these 8 points and includes "details" -- then I am all for it as well.

"if" you can make a case - do so.

In Christ,

Bbo

 

[D28guy]

"#1. Christ did NOT say “some day at some future time my flesh WILL become food”. He claimed that the bread ALREADY came down out of heaven.
#2. No one “bites Christ” in John 6.
#3. The faithLESS disciples are the only ones with the too-literal view.
#4. The FaithFULL disciples focus on the WORDS of Christ “YOU have the WORDS of LIFE”
#5. Christ summarized His OWN point saying that they should NOT focus on “literal flesh for it is worthless! My WORDs are spirit and are life”.
#6. Christ rebukes HIS disciples for taking the symbol of bread TOO literally and not seeing it as meaning “teaching” in Matt 16. No rebuke is given for their not “biting Him” in John 6.

It never ceases to amaze me the blind and gullible obedience that Catholics place in whatever unbiblical nonsense The Hierarchy tells them to "open wide" and swallow.

The scriptures are so very clear...the Catholic erronious counterfeit teachings are so very clearly false...yet it makes no difference.

We will believe it because the Catholic Church tells us we must!

* Jim Jones

* David Koresh

* Jehovahs Wittnesses

* Mormons

* Christian Science

* Catholicism

What a sad thing it is.

God bless,

Mike

 

[LorrieGrace]

Why are a bag of coins and a scrolled biography of the Pope buried with him?

 

[Bro. James]

A bag of coins--to get on the other side of purgatory.

A biography--kind of like a resume--to show to Peter at the gate--if there are enough coins to get there.

Facetious of course--but one way to show false doctrine for what it is--a lie--from the father of lies--a very serious matter.

Salvation by works never works.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, it's really quite simple. Your eight points, taken together, amount to a Zwingliist interpretation. I have given you ample evidence that those closest in time to the writing of that passage, plus the majority of Christian denominations since then - not just the Catholics, so you can lay to one side your obsessing about them - reject that Zwingliist hypothesis. So I am afraid that your eight points, taken together, fall against the weight of church history and consensus

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bro. James]

Some dumb questions:

1. What are the words, the pronouncement of which by an authorized minister or priest, that transform the elements into the literal body and blood of Jesus?

2. Where are these words found in scripture?

"This do in remembrance of Me."--Jesus, the last supper, circa A.D. 30.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."--John Ch. 3, Jesus to a "master" of Israel.

Most religions are caught up in the "carne" of this world.

Unless God "quickens" one's spirit there is no salvation--the pronouncements of all priests, potentates and popes notwithstanding.

Where will we spend eternity?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Bob, it's really quite simple. Your eight points, taken together, amount to a Zwingliist interpretation.

There is no question (as has already been stated) that if you allow yourself to "think" about the 8 obvious points you would be "tempted by the light" to conclude for the Protestant - Biblical POV. I have been saying that all along.

But that is not "proof" that they actually did ADDRESS these 8 obvious points or that they found a good way to obfuscate them.

The case you keep trying to sidestep is easy and obviousl

Your part:
You claim that they are on record as denying these 8 obvious points.

My part:
I claim that these 8 points are so obvious a child could get them - and that the RC sources were forced to believe RC myths "ANYWAY" as in "IN SPITE of the obvious points" not "BECAUSE of them".

PROOF:

All you have to do to PROVE your POV is SHOW that they really DID address the 8 points as you say they did and found a way to object to them. You task is really "EASY" if you had any substance to your claim. If not - you will continue to duck a direct response to the list - as you have been doing.


Conclusion.

Is also obvious.


oddity --

Then in a nonsensical nonsequiter kind of jesture you "imagine" that if the RC myth is clung to "anyway" - this somehow shows the RC devotees to have refuted or to have stated explicit objection to the 8 obvious points that are undeniable facts in the chapter of John 6.

In taking that step you seem to have left reason at the door for a purpose that I can not fathom.

Do you have any explanation at all for that --other than a kind of dissappointment that you never could find your sources ADDRESSING much less REJECTING the 8 obvious, clear, blatant points listed from John 6??

If not -- how in the world do you expect me or any reader to swallow that lack of logic and reason??

 

[BobRyan]

Perhaps you need some help with your side of the argument.

Hint: It is far more likely that the RC myth was "clung to anyway" by blindly denying that clear and obvious "implication" of the 8 undeniable points -- RATHER thyan trying to deny the 8 points themselves - 8 points that even a child would get easily.

THE PROBLEM with that most-likely approach is that you have already come out in your own posts and admitted that the 8 points so OBVIOUSLY conclude for the NON-RC position that if one actually DID admit to them - they would be forced to a NON-RC Bible Truth. I think THAT is where your pro-RC believers would differ with you.

 

[LorrieGrace]

Are there any Catholics reading this that can answer the question about the Pope being buried with a bag of coins and a scrolled biography? I am asking this in all sincerity. Thanks.

 

[Kathryn]

Are there any Catholics reading this that can answer the question about the Pope being buried with a bag of coins and a scrolled biography? I am asking this in all sincerity. Thanks.

If and when anyone years from now open the tomb they would have a little time capsule and know who this Pope was.

-- In the coffin
It is tradition to include in the coffin the destroyed Fisherman’s Ring, a red velvet pouch containing medals, coins, copies of significant documents from his papacy, a funeral homily and a death certificate.

It's for the living, not the dead. It is about preserving history. The coins would have been Vatican coins that had his picture on them. They are quite common on Ebay.

[ April 29, 2005, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

[Kathryn]

duplicate post

 

[Living4Him]

wrong post

 

[LorrieGrace]

Thanks Kathryn. I didn't think that the ring was destroyed until the Cardinals conveined for the Conclave. Did they then reopen his coffin and put the ring in there with him??

 

[Living4Him]

LorrieGrace,

The papal ring is broken at the time of death.