Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

So no evidence. Just as I thought.

---

Indeed, there is no evidence of Christ in you, sir.

---

Why do you do that? Instead of answering questions? Deflect and accuse the other of not having Christ because he asks you a question that you don't want to answer or cannot answer? Do you think that you are being Christlike?

---

Your problem is that I DO answer questions, then you and BTD get angry because I will not harass and attack other Christians for a different opinion than yours.

As for being Christian, look at your posts Frodo. All you and BTD have done here is show anger, make demands and insult Christian tradition, all out of your pride.

Read your own posts and see how far from Christ you are in your tone and attacks. Christ said "come let us reason" while you and BTD say 'agree with me or else' .

---

No, you DON'T answer questions. How can you say this, knowing that you've refused to answer my question over and over and over again? How do you outright lie about that like you just did? Everyone here has seen it. Incredible.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Read this thread. ALL of it.

If you don't see it, ask Curtpenn or Lib Mr Bears or Coke Bear about your tone and choice of words.

Or continue denying it.

You have already ignored me whenever you did not agree with me, so I am not going to waste more time on trying to persuade you.

As for Scripture, I have posted more in this thread than you, yet you ignore it because it does not help your ego.

Read the entire thread, if you want to truly understand, including and especially the posts from people with different experiences.

This is not about winning arguments. That is folly, yet oh so popular.

---

You are STILL NOT giving proof of what you say. You are repeatedly dodging when asked for the evidence.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

---

Quoted below is a Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture referring to John 4:34 which comes well before John 6:

Quote:

---

The disciples expected Jesus to eat. He had been hungry as well as thirsty but had undergone the well-known psychological experience of hunger vanishing before a deeper desire, that of converting a soul. This is the satisfying food that his disciples did not know. They thought that he had received something to eat. He explained that the doing of his Father's will and the accomplishment of his Father's work was the supreme satisfaction of all his desiresit was 'his food'. (CCHS, 988)

---

---

Sorry, this just doesn't address my point at all.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

---

This quote is from Catholic apologist, speaker, and author, Jim Blackburn is direct response to your post:

Quote:

---

Note that Jesus is talking about "food" for himself here, not the food "the Son of man will give to you" (John 6:27). Of course, we could say that doing the will of the Father and accomplishing his work is (or should be) "food" for all Christians, but saying so does not in any way diminish the reality or importance of the Eucharist that Jesus reveals in John 6.

---

---

Why is it figurative when Jesus is talking about food for himself, but literal when talking about food he'll give to us? This isn't answering anything, it's only asserting a distinction without any basis.

This does not falsify the idea that Jesus is speaking figuratively regarding eating and food throughout the book of John, including chapter 6.

Cok said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

---

We Catholics believe in a Both/And philosophy. As mentioned earlier, the Eucharist is required for those who understand this. We are never told that Nicodemus, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, nor the house of Cornelius did not eat the Eucharist. That wasn't the point of those passages. Jesus makes it abundantly clear in John 6 and the Last Supper that He means it literally.

---

If Jesus meant it literally, then the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation, no exceptions....right? ("you have NO LIFE within you").

And if so, how do you square this with what Jesus said in verses 40 and 54 above? They're both saying what it takes to be raised up by Jesus to eternal life on the last day - but one says "believing" and the other says "feeding on my flesh". If "feeding on my flesh" is literal, and it is required for salvation, why is he saying that "believing" yields the same result, that is, eternal life?

And on what basis do you conclude that Jesus makes it clear he meant it literally in John 6 and the Last Supper, when he speaks of "eating", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" figuratively in other passages in John? The Philippian jailer and the house of Cornelius were specifically told what it takes to be saved - and the Eucharist was NOT mentioned. If Jesus is to be taken literally in John 6, then the Eucharist is REQUIRED for salvation, and therefore that would falsify what the jailer and Cornelius were told, right?

Co said:

---

Here are two tracks from Catholic Answers that "flesh out" (pardon the pun) the believe and the Eucharist and those in the early Church fathers that wrote about it. Their writings are never rebuked or challenged. Many of them wrote BEFORE the NT was canonized. Their believes were never condemned in the Councils. The believe in the Real Presence is AFFIRMED in the Councils.
Christ in the Eucharist
What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

Please explain how the Church has existed since Pentecost with this belief and was never struck down. It only took one day for the Hebrews to worship the Golden Calf before God allow the Levites to kill 3000 (an event which is typologically mirrored in Pentecost.)

Please find the source for me the first time that John 6 was supposed to be a symbol and then please explain why it took nearly 1500 years before that belief arose.

Quite frankly, I'll stand with Jesus, the apostles, His Church, the Church fathers, and magisterium before I trust the beliefs a man 1500 years removed from the actual source.

I understand that this is VERY difficult for you to accept. Jesus knows this. He lost hundreds , if not thousands of disciples after his Bread of Life Discourse. He let them go because they were not ready to hear these hard sayings.

Finally, the Church has seen several Eucharistic miracles of the accidents of the bread and / or wine changing into actual flesh and blood. When tested, the flesh is from the heart and the blood type is AB negative (which matches the blood type on the Shroud of Turin.

The Amazing Science of Recent Eucharistic Miracles: A Message from Heaven?
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I do pray for you daily to come to accept the beautiful truth of the Eucharist.

---

Answer these questions for me. If John 6 and the Last Supper is/was literal, then:

1. the disciples literally drank Jesus' blood. Isn't this a violation of God's law in Leviticus 17:10-12? "Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Why would Jesus have them break this law?

2. When was Jesus' body broken in sacrifice for our sins? Was it during the Last Supper ("this is my body") when the bread was broken, or was it on the cross during his crucifixion?

3. Did Judas Iscariot, who took part in Last Supper, receive eternal life from eating the bread that was Jesus' body, as Jesus promised in John 6? Was Judas saved due to eating the bread?

So perhaps some information from the church of the first millennium will help here.

1. Becoming part of the Christian faith was a process, not an event.
2. The Eucharist/Communion was reserved for Christians who had been baptized and anointed with oil and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in Chrismation.
3. Prior to becoming a Christian the individual spent time months or sometimes years as a catechumen praying and studying and it was fully understood that a catechumen who had yet to be baptized or partake of the Eucharist would be saved based on his professions of faith at the start of his or her catechumenate just as a "Christian" who refused the Eucharist and church attendance would be lost based on his demonstration of a lack thereof.
4. While the above was true for adult converts, babies were baptized and chrismated upon birth and partook of the Eucharist from infancy.

This understanding has almost entirely been lost in the west where Roman Catholics/Lutherans (although they have maintained a vestigial catchecumenate in some sense) have added confirmation while those who don't baptize infants have added the philosophical construct of an age of accountability and turned the process of becoming a Christian into an event.

But perhaps the historical understanding of point 3 will help reconcile the tension between "no life in you" and "confessed with your mouth and you will be,"

Realitybites said:

---

So perhaps some information from the church of the first millennium will help here.

1. Becoming part of the Christian faith was a process, not an event.
2. The Eucharist/Communion was reserved for Christians who had been baptized and anointed with oil and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in Chrismation.
3. Prior to becoming a Christian the individual spent time months or sometimes years as a catechumen praying and studying and it was fully understood that a catechumen who had yet to be baptized or partake of the Eucharist would be saved based on his professions of faith at the start of his or her catechumenate just as a "Christian" who refused the Eucharist and church attendance would be lost based on his demonstration of a lack thereof.
4. While the above was true for adult converts, babies were baptized and chrismated upon birth and partook of the Eucharist from infancy.

This understanding has almost entirely been lost in the west where Roman Catholics/Lutherans (although they have maintained a vestigial catchecumenate in some sense) have added confirmation while those who don't baptize infants have added the philosophical construct of an age of accountability and turned the process of becoming a Christian into an event.

But perhaps the historical understanding of point 3 will help reconcile the tension between "no life in you" and "confessed with your mouth and you will be,"

---

Thank you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Co said:

---

Here are two tracks from Catholic Answers that "flesh out" (pardon the pun) the believe and the Eucharist and those in the early Church fathers that wrote about it. Their writings are never rebuked or challenged. Many of them wrote BEFORE the NT was canonized. Their believes were never condemned in the Councils. The believe in the Real Presence is AFFIRMED in the Councils.
Christ in the Eucharist
What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

Please explain how the Church has existed since Pentecost with this belief and was never struck down. It only took one day for the Hebrews to worship the Golden Calf before God allow the Levites to kill 3000 (an event which is typologically mirrored in Pentecost.)

Please find the source for me the first time that John 6 was supposed to be a symbol and then please explain why it took nearly 1500 years before that belief arose.

Quite frankly, I'll stand with Jesus, the apostles, His Church, the Church fathers, and magisterium before I trust the beliefs a man 1500 years removed from the actual source.

I understand that this is VERY difficult for you to accept. Jesus knows this. He lost hundreds , if not thousands of disciples after his Bread of Life Discourse. He let them go because they were not ready to hear these hard sayings.

Finally, the Church has seen several Eucharistic miracles of the accidents of the bread and / or wine changing into actual flesh and blood. When tested, the flesh is from the heart and the blood type is AB negative (which matches the blood type on the Shroud of Turin.

The Amazing Science of Recent Eucharistic Miracles: A Message from Heaven?
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I do pray for you daily to come to accept the beautiful truth of the Eucharist.

---

Answer these questions for me. If John 6 and the Last Supper is/was literal, then:

1. the disciples literally drank Jesus' blood. Isn't this a violation of God's law in Leviticus 17:10-12? "Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Why would Jesus have them break this law?

2. When was Jesus' body broken in sacrifice for our sins? Was it during the Last Supper ("this is my body") when the bread was broken, or was it on the cross during his crucifixion?

3. Did Judas Iscariot, who took part in Last Supper, receive eternal life from eating the bread that was Jesus' body, as Jesus promised in John 6? Was Judas saved due to eating the bread?

---

Partaking in Communion is not salvific in and of itself, so your many of your questions/objections are moot. As to #1, this helps explain some of the dismay we see recorded in Scripture. As to #2, yes to both.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cok said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

---

We Catholics believe in a Both/And philosophy. As mentioned earlier, the Eucharist is required for those who understand this. We are never told that Nicodemus, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, nor the house of Cornelius did not eat the Eucharist. That wasn't the point of those passages. Jesus makes it abundantly clear in John 6 and the Last Supper that He means it literally.

---

If Jesus meant it literally, then the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation, no exceptions....right? ("you have NO LIFE within you").

---

It is literal and it refers to the quality of one's spiritual life. Partaking of Communion provides an instrument whereby we are fed and enabled in our walk as we commune with both the Church Visible and the Church Invisible. It is edifying.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

---

This quote is from Catholic apologist, speaker, and author, Jim Blackburn is direct response to your post:

Quote:

---

Note that Jesus is talking about "food" for himself here, not the food "the Son of man will give to you" (John 6:27). Of course, we could say that doing the will of the Father and accomplishing his work is (or should be) "food" for all Christians, but saying so does not in any way diminish the reality or importance of the Eucharist that Jesus reveals in John 6.

---

---

Why is it figurative when Jesus is talking about food for himself, but literal when talking about food he'll give to us? This isn't answering anything, it's only asserting a distinction without any basis.

This does not falsify the idea that Jesus is speaking figuratively regarding eating and food throughout the book of John, including chapter 6.

---

This is no more asserting without any basis than most of what you assert. Your "basis" is just your opinion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Read this thread. ALL of it.

If you don't see it, ask Curtpenn or Lib Mr Bears or Coke Bear about your tone and choice of words.

Or continue denying it.

You have already ignored me whenever you did not agree with me, so I am not going to waste more time on trying to persuade you.

As for Scripture, I have posted more in this thread than you, yet you ignore it because it does not help your ego.

Read the entire thread, if you want to truly understand, including and especially the posts from people with different experiences.

This is not about winning arguments. That is folly, yet oh so popular.

---

You are STILL NOT giving proof of what you say. You are repeatedly dodging when asked for the evidence.

---

That you deny the truth of what OldBear says tells us all we need to know about your powers of observation and/or reasoning.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

What do you presume is my "tradition"? You work backwards from a particular interpretation of text to draw your own conclusions about what the text must mean, then don your Inquisitor's robes and obsess over just one of many writings of an Italian bishop who lived in a period that produced over 450 years of Italian popes. You ignore context. You ignore that it is certainly possible to venerate Mary and still be saved by faith in Christ. You ignore that it is possible to have faith in Mary (or any saint or saintly person) while still having saving faith in Christ. You ignore that these two things are not the same.

There is no inconsistency in my interpretation; I understand that some things are literal and some are not. You are confused about what to apply when.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't whether or not Marian veneration is wrong, it's what must I do to be saved. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger. N'cest-ce pas?

---

Do you realize that your whole argument for the bread being the literal flesh of Jesus is that Jesus' words should be taken literally? You destroyed your own argument. I think I clearly demonstrated this.
Typical strawman from you. It is clear that some statements are meant to be literal and some are not. You haven't demonstrated squat except in your own mind.


If the issue is what one must do to be saved, then those prayers to Mary ARE significant. Can you honestly say that someone who believes what those prayers are saying, are truly putting their faith in Jesus, and not in Mary?? This is tremendously pertinent to salvation. This is simple; venerating Mary does not preclude having faith in Jesus. These things are not mutually exclusive.


Why do you always repeat what I say, using the same words? Are you not able to put your own thoughts into your own words? Well, I'll take it as flattery, because you like the way I say things. My hope is that since you like your own words so well you will better understand the point. Just trying to help you out, buddy.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---

Does it matter? If the Catholic authorities say nothing against it, then it puts their authority with the Holy Spirit under considerable question, doesn't it? That's the point, and it's the point that you constantly miss.

---

And so you would substitute the authority of the First Church of Tarp Dusting for that of the Magisterium? Makes sense.

---

It's called "Christianity". I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

---

Nice. Good to know where I can turn for all the right answers now.

---

Yes, Jesus Christ. As in the Bible. Not your traditions that have no biblical basis.

---

Most ignorant/arrogant post of the day right there. No surprise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Did Jesus come through Mary?

The answer is YES. We obtain "every hope, every grace, and all salvation" thru Jesus who came through Mary.

There is nothing wrong with Marian devotion. We only love Jesus more by honoring His Mother. He LOVES us when we honor His mother.

---

No, Jesus did not come through Mary. Jesus preexisted Mary. Mary merely bore Jesus' as a baby to start his earthly existence.

John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

ALL things were made through Jesus. That includes Mary. Jesus did not come through Mary, it is the other way around - Mary came through Jesus, according to scripture.

No, we don't obtain everything through Mary. We obtain everything through God, through JESUS, not Mary.

The redirect of focus away from Jesus and onto Mary here, trying to give Mary the credit and the glory, honor, and praise for what Jesus should be credited, glorified, honored, and praised for, is such blatant heresy and idolatry. And it's troubling that you defend it. This isn't Marian devotion. This isn't loving Jesus' mother. This is idolatrous Mary worship. It is so sad that you are in such darkness that you can't see it for what it is.

---

Of course Jesus came through Mary. Do you deny His humanity? Wandering off into docetism?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

Don't believe I've ever seen you state your views re salvation. Is saving faith irresistible, prevenient, something else? What do you think makes one a Christian?

---

I've stated it many times. You're just gonna have to pay attention better. Judging by the number of times I had to explain that The Glories of Mary is NOT an obscure text written by an obscure author like you asserted (it was at least three times) it's clear that either you have reading or memory problems; or, you are just so blinded by your nastiness that you just don't want to absorb anything I say.

---

I've asked you directly many times going back for some weeks now to tell us what you believe we must do to be saved and I have never seen you give a direct answer. Sorry if I missed it, but I don't think you have. If I am blinded by my nastiness, then at least we have blindness and nastiness in common.

FWIW, if one were to quiz the average Roman Catholic parishioner as to the prayer and bishop you obsess over, I suspect something less than 1% could tell you anything about them. No way to be certain, but that qualifies as obscure for me. What is your threshold expressed as a percentage?

Realitybites said:

---

This understanding has almost entirely been lost in the west where Roman Catholics/Lutherans (although they have maintained a vestigial catchecumenate in some sense) have added confirmation while those who don't baptize infants have added the philosophical construct of an age of accountability and turned the process of becoming a Christian into an event.

---

I assume you mean Latin or Western Rite. 'Roman' is somewhat pejorative.

Having said that, may Eastern Catholics, such as the Byzantines, do confer all 3 Sacraments of Initiation to infants. Some Latin (Western) dioceses in the US have re-instituted the practice as well.

I agree with the practice in principle and spirit. I was not fully aware of this 20 to 25 years ago when my children were infants. I would have probably preferred that.

Because my dad is a Deacon for our parish, he was able to baptize my last two. Of course, we would have needed the priest to confer Confirmation for them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Answer these questions for me. If John 6 and the Last Supper is/was literal, then:

---

I didn't see an answer to some of my questions concerning tradition and history, but here you go …

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1. the disciples literally drank Jesus' blood. Isn't this a violation of God's law in Leviticus 17:10-12? "Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Why would Jesus have them break this law?

---

As you know, when referring to the 613 Levitical laws, we must always ask if the specific law was a Natural (Moral) law adultery, murder, fornication, etc., Civil law just scales, debt, clothing and hair, etc., and Ceremonial law Festivals, Priestly duties, Atonement, Food and Drink, etc.

Clearly the drinking of blood falls into the Ceremonial law. There is nothing immoral or intrinsically evil about drinking blood. Jesus fulfilled the old laws and is now the new law. The moral laws still remain today.

Finally, Jesus commands us to do this. Just like when he declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19. He would NEVER command us to do something that was evil.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2. When was Jesus' body broken in sacrifice for our sins? Was it during the Last Supper ("this is my body") when the bread was broken, or was it on the cross during his crucifixion?

---

The bread was broken, but not his BONES. Not sure I get your point here. Is a 'broken body' some sort of Calvinist belief?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3. Did Judas Iscariot, who took part in Last Supper, receive eternal life from eating the bread that was Jesus' body, as Jesus promised in John 6? Was Judas saved due to eating the bread?

---

He may have been, HOWEVER, the Church teaches that one can lose salvation, which he may have done with the betrayal of Jesus.

Actually, we do not know for sure Judas' fate. According to the Gospels, (Matthew 26:24 & Mark 14:21) it would have been better if he were never born.

But we know he felt remorse, gave back the money and hanged himself in grief. (Matthew 27:3-5). Christians has wrestled with this for centuries. Quite frankly, I don't think it looks good for him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This does not falsify the idea that Jesus is speaking figuratively regarding eating and food throughout the book of John, including chapter 6.

---

Where in John 6 is Jesus speaking figuratively?

(Seriously) Try reading The Bread of Life Discourse (john 6:25-70) without your Protestant lens and read it where he is offering His body to us. It makes much more sense that way rather than forcing a "figurative" meaning into the passage. One will understand why the disciples grumbled, left, and never returned.

Then 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27-30 make sense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus meant it literally, then the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation, no exceptions....right? ("you have NO LIFE within you").

---

I don't understand why Protestants take such a legalistic stand on their theology. God works outside the sacraments. We don't. To those who know the truth, they are required to accept this. I suppose you don't believe that 13th century Native Americans are NOT in heaven either because they didn't believe Jesus NOR say the sinner's prayer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if so, how do you square this with what Jesus said in verses 40 and 54 above? They're both saying what it takes to be raised up by Jesus to eternal life on the last day - but one says "believing" and the other says "feeding on my flesh". If "feeding on my flesh" is literal, and it is required for salvation, why is he saying that "believing" yields the same result, that is, eternal life?

---

Once again, this is another example of the Protestant 'either/or'. The reality is that it is a BOTH/AND. Ask yourself if you are "believing in" the Son when He says to eat of His flesh and drink His blood.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And on what basis do you conclude that Jesus makes it clear he meant it literally in John 6 and the Last Supper, when he speaks of "eating", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" figuratively in other passages in John? The Philippian jailer and the house of Cornelius were specifically told what it takes to be saved - and the Eucharist was NOT mentioned. If Jesus is to be taken literally in John 6, then the Eucharist is REQUIRED for salvation, and therefore that would falsify what the jailer and Cornelius were told, right?

---

Was he speaking figuratively? Those that do partake in His Flesh and Blood will never hunger or thirst in HEAVEN when they get there. By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again.

This post brings up something which I think is far more important than intellectual questions.

The Gospel accounts have numerous passages where we are warned to avoid getting complacent, let alone arrogant, about our outcome where God's Judgment is concerned.

Just a sample here:

""Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Matthew 7:13-14

"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to"

Luke 13:24

"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Matthew 12:37

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

Philippians 2:12



My point is that I see a lot of people using individual verses to support their claim, as well as personal interpretations and tradition. But again looking to Jesus as the exemplar, He took priests and pharisees to task for invalid tradition and wrong interpretation of the Law and the whole of the Torah, in fact. We should learn to avoid that mistake and consider Scripture in toto before claiming authority under it.


With regard to Communion, when I go back to Scripture there are three references where Jesus breaks the bread and calls it his body; Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19 . In John Chapter 13, we are not told that Jesus told the disciples that the bread they took was HIs body. Instead, Jesus used bread to refer to Judas, as He said

""I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: 'He who shared my bread has turned against me."

John 13:18

Jesus reinforces the point when asked who would betray Him;

"Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot."

John 13:26

So in Matthew 26:26 Jesus says "Take and eat; this is my body.", in Mark 14:22 Jesus says "Take it; this is my body", and in Luke 22:19 Jesus says "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me"

Three similar but slightly different passages, but I notice all four were directed to specific people, and I suspect this is more important than the ordinary range of perspectives on an event.

The significance of the bread ranges from intimate relationship with Christ, to remembering our Lord in ceremony, to Judas condemning himself even as he imagined he was showing devotion to the Lord.

John 13:27 says it plainly: " As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him."

Even as I admit my understanding of Scripture is imperfect, this verse strikes me as a clear warning not to screw around with the things of God.


A minister strong in faith once warned me that we should always pray for Wisdom and Insight before reading, and afterwards as well.

I think that would be a good reminder to us all in this thread.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Purgatory is the unBiblical belief that rather than going to heaven or hell, there is a third place that's sort of in between called Purgatory to Purge a person of their sins before they can go to heaven. It's a false Doctrine that's unBiblical that the Catholic Church invented, based on the Un Inspired Apochrical writings.

---

No disrespect, but I delayed in responded because I was looking forward to BDT's answer.

I will address your incorrect claims. First, it is NOT unbiblical nor was it "invented" by the Catholic Church. The term "Apochrical" {sic} (Apocryphal) is a pejorative term referring to the Deuterocanon which is Holy Spirit inspired, but not the point of this post.

As for Purgatory -

When one dies, they are immediately judged. Catholics refer to this as the Particular Judgement. The only two results are Heaven or Hell. This question for Him is simple Did the person die in friendship with God i.e. die without mortal sin on their soul? If yes, then Heaven. If no, then hell.

Purgatory is NOT a second chance.

We see in Revelation 21:27 referring to Heaven:

and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Most of us would agree that we are all sinners. We, most likely, do not practice adultery, fornication, murder, theft, take the Lord's name in vain, etc.

However, if we were honest with ourselves, most of us, are not perfect (unclean). I'm trying not to project too much here, but I'm sure many of us struggle with a variety of sins such as detraction, calumny, lust, anger, pride, or gluttony, etc.

We MUST get rid of (purge) these imperfections BEFORE we enter heaven if we believe Rev. 21:27.

What other biblical evidence can Catholics offer?

Let's examine 1 Cor 3:11-15:

Quote:

---

11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person's work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be savedeven though only as one escaping through the flames.

---

The building on Christ's foundation is our works. The 'gold, silver, costly stones' are our good works and the "wood, hay or straw" are our bad works or venial sins.

The "Day" in verse 13 is our Particular Judgement. Once if those works survive, we get our reward Heaven. If our works or sins are lost (burned up with the fire Purged) we will "escape through the flames."

Where was this person in this passage? They can't be in heaven yet because they had works to be tested. They can't be in Hell, because NO one gets out of hell once they are sent there.

It has to be another place. Catholics refer to this as Purgatory. You can call it "Albuquerque", but we get cleansed somewhere.

One last passage I'll offer is Matthew 25-26:

Quote:

---

25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

---

Here is a track from Catholic Answers that goes into death about the Greek word for prison used here is phulake, which is the same word that Peter uses to describe a 'holding place' in the afterlife. The penny (kondrantes) is an extremely small percentage of the daily wage, meaning that it is an offense can be paid.

There is a great defense in the book, Purgatory Is for Real: Good News About the Afterlife for Those Who Aren't Perfect Yet by Karlo Broussard.

He does a great job explaining this dogma that I can do in this 'TLDR' post.

Re 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. {hell: or, the grave}
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This is at the final Judgment called The Great White Throne Judgment. Only unbelievers are Judged there. They are cast into the Lake of Fire right afterward. It's not a good thing to be judged at this one. True Born Again Christians will be Judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ, not on their sins, because they are forgiven, but on their works for Jesus to gain Eternal Rewards in Heaven.

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Coke Bear said:

---

I assume you mean Latin or Western Rite. 'Roman' is somewhat pejorative.

Having said that, may Eastern Catholics, such as the Byzantines, do confer all 3 Sacraments of Initiation to infants. Some Latin (Western) dioceses in the US have re-instituted the practice as well.

I agree with the practice in principle and spirit. I was not fully aware of this 20 to 25 years ago when my children were infants. I would have probably preferred that.

Because my dad is a Deacon for our parish, he was able to baptize my last two. Of course, we would have needed the priest to confer Confirmation for them.

---

Interesting, I wasn't aware that any western churches had restored the practice of communing infants. I use the term Roman to try and differentiate between Vatican II Roman Catholics and Latin Mass "Traditional" Catholics. In the modern Era, using Latin to refer to the western rite as a whole becomes a source of confusion as there is so much water under the bridge. I'd be curious to see how closely the Latin Mass resembles the Liturgy of John Chrysostom from 400AD that we have. When I left the SBC I visited quite a few historic churches including an LCMS service and a Vatican II mass. I found the mass interesting because the priest didn't offer the Blood of Christ to parishioners. I didn't realize that was something that was optional in that rite. The overall feeling I walked away with was the mass being a thoroughly modern production, something like a Cavalry Chapel worship service from 1970 plus the LCMS communion service minus the Blood of Christ.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

I assume you mean Latin or Western Rite. 'Roman' is somewhat pejorative.

Having said that, may Eastern Catholics, such as the Byzantines, do confer all 3 Sacraments of Initiation to infants. Some Latin (Western) dioceses in the US have re-instituted the practice as well.

I agree with the practice in principle and spirit. I was not fully aware of this 20 to 25 years ago when my children were infants. I would have probably preferred that.

Because my dad is a Deacon for our parish, he was able to baptize my last two. Of course, we would have needed the priest to confer Confirmation for them.

---

Interesting, I wasn't aware that any western churches had restored the practice of communing infants. I use the term Roman to try and differentiate between Vatican II Roman Catholics and Latin Mass "Traditional" Catholics. In the modern Era, using Latin to refer to the western rite as a whole becomes a source of confusion as there is so much water under the bridge. I'd be curious to see how closely the Latin Mass resembles the Liturgy of John Chrysostom from 400AD that we have. When I left the SBC I visited quite a few historic churches including an LCMS service and a Vatican II mass. I found the mass interesting because the priest didn't offer the Blood of Christ to parishioners. I didn't realize that was something that was optional in that rite. The overall feeling I walked away with was the mass being a thoroughly modern production, something like a Cavalry Chapel worship service from 1970 plus the LCMS communion service minus the Blood of Christ.

---

With respect to the TLM vs. Liturgy of John Chrysostom similarities I have no clue. I've only attended one Traditional Latin Mass in my adult life. It was a high mass at St. Peter's at Baylor this summer.

I've attended many Novus Ordo masses at St. Peter's, and I really like Fr. Finch. His TLM was well done and very reverent (he presides over his Novus Ordo masses with the same reverence). Having said that, the TLM wasn't my vibe. I loved the reverence and kneeling for communion (on the tongue. I can't remember if he did Intinction at that mass or not.) But, like I stated, it wasn't for me. I might try it again at some point.

The TLM and Novus Ordo do follow the same "rubrics" laid out by Justin Martyr in 155 AD. I do not know how that differs from the Liturgy of John Chrysostom. Once a month, the Byzantines hold the Devine Liturgy at St. Peter's as well. I have intentions to visit that mass.

As I understand it, as a Western rite Catholic, I would not be allowed to receive communion (or the other (sacraments) from the Orthodox liturgy.

Quite frankly, I like the Novus Ordo and prefer the vernacular. The ones that I attend in town regularly are reverently executed and seem to be free of Liturgical abuse. I have heard horror stories of some Novus Ordos.

Finally, we respect to the Blood of Christ not being offered. Depending on where you are, that might be a diocesan or parish level decision. My parish, St Jerome in Hewitt, offers it every Saturday vigil/Sunday mass. Our priest doesn't do it for daily mass (unless it's a Solemnity), but I haven't seen any priest offer it at a daily mass.

Realitybites said:

---

So perhaps some information from the church of the first millennium will help here.

1. Becoming part of the Christian faith was a process, not an event.
2. The Eucharist/Communion was reserved for Christians who had been baptized and anointed with oil and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in Chrismation.
3. Prior to becoming a Christian the individual spent time months or sometimes years as a catechumen praying and studying and it was fully understood that a catechumen who had yet to be baptized or partake of the Eucharist would be saved based on his professions of faith at the start of his or her catechumenate just as a "Christian" who refused the Eucharist and church attendance would be lost based on his demonstration of a lack thereof.
4. While the above was true for adult converts, babies were baptized and chrismated upon birth and partook of the Eucharist from infancy.

This understanding has almost entirely been lost in the west where Roman Catholics/Lutherans (although they have maintained a vestigial catchecumenate in some sense) have added confirmation while those who don't baptize infants have added the philosophical construct of an age of accountability and turned the process of becoming a Christian into an event.

But perhaps the historical understanding of point 3 will help reconcile the tension between "no life in you" and "confessed with your mouth and you will be,"

---

This is wrong. In the bible, people became Christians instantaneously upon their true belief. There was no process of studying or preparation, or anything like that.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Co said:

---

Here are two tracks from Catholic Answers that "flesh out" (pardon the pun) the believe and the Eucharist and those in the early Church fathers that wrote about it. Their writings are never rebuked or challenged. Many of them wrote BEFORE the NT was canonized. Their believes were never condemned in the Councils. The believe in the Real Presence is AFFIRMED in the Councils.
Christ in the Eucharist
What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

Please explain how the Church has existed since Pentecost with this belief and was never struck down. It only took one day for the Hebrews to worship the Golden Calf before God allow the Levites to kill 3000 (an event which is typologically mirrored in Pentecost.)

Please find the source for me the first time that John 6 was supposed to be a symbol and then please explain why it took nearly 1500 years before that belief arose.

Quite frankly, I'll stand with Jesus, the apostles, His Church, the Church fathers, and magisterium before I trust the beliefs a man 1500 years removed from the actual source.

I understand that this is VERY difficult for you to accept. Jesus knows this. He lost hundreds , if not thousands of disciples after his Bread of Life Discourse. He let them go because they were not ready to hear these hard sayings.

Finally, the Church has seen several Eucharistic miracles of the accidents of the bread and / or wine changing into actual flesh and blood. When tested, the flesh is from the heart and the blood type is AB negative (which matches the blood type on the Shroud of Turin.

The Amazing Science of Recent Eucharistic Miracles: A Message from Heaven?
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I do pray for you daily to come to accept the beautiful truth of the Eucharist.

---

Answer these questions for me. If John 6 and the Last Supper is/was literal, then:

1. the disciples literally drank Jesus' blood. Isn't this a violation of God's law in Leviticus 17:10-12? "Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Why would Jesus have them break this law?

2. When was Jesus' body broken in sacrifice for our sins? Was it during the Last Supper ("this is my body") when the bread was broken, or was it on the cross during his crucifixion?

3. Did Judas Iscariot, who took part in Last Supper, receive eternal life from eating the bread that was Jesus' body, as Jesus promised in John 6? Was Judas saved due to eating the bread?

---

Partaking in Communion is not salvific in and of itself, so your many of your questions/objections are moot. As to #1, this helps explain some of the dismay we see recorded in Scripture. As to #2, yes to both.

---

My question is moot only if you decided to not take Jesus' words literally, where he said that unless you partake in his flesh, you have no life in you. Which would then destroy your whole reasoning behind taking Jesus' words literally when he said "this is my body". You are being intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.

If Jesus was speaking literally, then he literally was commanding his followers to break the law of the Torah. Which would make him a sinner, and not a perfect sacrifice, which would make his sacrifice ineffectual. We would not be saved by his sacrifice, then.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cok said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

---

We Catholics believe in a Both/And philosophy. As mentioned earlier, the Eucharist is required for those who understand this. We are never told that Nicodemus, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, nor the house of Cornelius did not eat the Eucharist. That wasn't the point of those passages. Jesus makes it abundantly clear in John 6 and the Last Supper that He means it literally.

---

If Jesus meant it literally, then the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation, no exceptions....right? ("you have NO LIFE within you").

---

It is literal and it refers to the quality of one's spiritual life. Partaking of Communion provides an instrument whereby we are fed and enabled in our walk as we commune with both the Church Visible and the Church Invisible. It is edifying.

---

"NO LIFE within you" does not mean just the quality of your spiritual life is down. It's saying your spiritual life is DEAD. You have NONE. "NO life".

Now who's not taking Jesus at his word?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

---

This quote is from Catholic apologist, speaker, and author, Jim Blackburn is direct response to your post:

Quote:

---

Note that Jesus is talking about "food" for himself here, not the food "the Son of man will give to you" (John 6:27). Of course, we could say that doing the will of the Father and accomplishing his work is (or should be) "food" for all Christians, but saying so does not in any way diminish the reality or importance of the Eucharist that Jesus reveals in John 6.

---

---

Why is it figurative when Jesus is talking about food for himself, but literal when talking about food he'll give to us? This isn't answering anything, it's only asserting a distinction without any basis.

This does not falsify the idea that Jesus is speaking figuratively regarding eating and food throughout the book of John, including chapter 6.

---

This is no more asserting without any basis than most of what you assert. Your "basis" is just your opinion.

---

My basis seems more consistent with the whole of scripture, while yours is based on poor, inconsistent hermaneutics, eisegesis, and exegesis, i.e. ad hoc explanations to preserve your traditions.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Read this thread. ALL of it.

If you don't see it, ask Curtpenn or Lib Mr Bears or Coke Bear about your tone and choice of words.

Or continue denying it.

You have already ignored me whenever you did not agree with me, so I am not going to waste more time on trying to persuade you.

As for Scripture, I have posted more in this thread than you, yet you ignore it because it does not help your ego.

Read the entire thread, if you want to truly understand, including and especially the posts from people with different experiences.

This is not about winning arguments. That is folly, yet oh so popular.

---

You are STILL NOT giving proof of what you say. You are repeatedly dodging when asked for the evidence.

---

That you deny the truth of what OldBear says tells us all we need to know about your powers of observation and/or reasoning.

---

OldBear isn't telling us truth. If he was, he'd be able to answer my challenge, and actually support what he says with true evidence. He hasn't, because he can't.

Perhaps this has eluded you, due to the lack in your own powers of observation and/or reasoning.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

What do you presume is my "tradition"? You work backwards from a particular interpretation of text to draw your own conclusions about what the text must mean, then don your Inquisitor's robes and obsess over just one of many writings of an Italian bishop who lived in a period that produced over 450 years of Italian popes. You ignore context. You ignore that it is certainly possible to venerate Mary and still be saved by faith in Christ. You ignore that it is possible to have faith in Mary (or any saint or saintly person) while still having saving faith in Christ. You ignore that these two things are not the same.

There is no inconsistency in my interpretation; I understand that some things are literal and some are not. You are confused about what to apply when.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't whether or not Marian veneration is wrong, it's what must I do to be saved. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger. N'cest-ce pas?

---

Do you realize that your whole argument for the bread being the literal flesh of Jesus is that Jesus' words should be taken literally? You destroyed your own argument. I think I clearly demonstrated this.
Typical strawman from you. It is clear that some statements are meant to be literal and some are not. You haven't demonstrated squat except in your own mind.


If the issue is what one must do to be saved, then those prayers to Mary ARE significant. Can you honestly say that someone who believes what those prayers are saying, are truly putting their faith in Jesus, and not in Mary?? This is tremendously pertinent to salvation. This is simple; venerating Mary does not preclude having faith in Jesus. These things are not mutually exclusive.


Why do you always repeat what I say, using the same words? Are you not able to put your own thoughts into your own words? Well, I'll take it as flattery, because you like the way I say things. My hope is that since you like your own words so well you will better understand the point. Just trying to help you out, buddy.

---

---

There is no strawman; I clearly demonstrated the inconsistency in your reasoning. You are merely taking Jesus literally at one point, and not another without any hermaneutic basis (or at least, you are employing a faulty one) simply for the reason that you want to believe what you want to believe, and you don't believe what you don't want to believe. As such, reasoning scripture with you has become fruitless and pointless.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---

Does it matter? If the Catholic authorities say nothing against it, then it puts their authority with the Holy Spirit under considerable question, doesn't it? That's the point, and it's the point that you constantly miss.

---

And so you would substitute the authority of the First Church of Tarp Dusting for that of the Magisterium? Makes sense.

---

It's called "Christianity". I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

---

Nice. Good to know where I can turn for all the right answers now.

---

Yes, Jesus Christ. As in the Bible. Not your traditions that have no biblical basis.

---

Most ignorant/arrogant post of the day right there. No surprise.

---

Praying to saints has no biblical basis. Those prayers to Mary are clearly heretical and idolatrous, and none of the Marian dogmas, which you support and defend, have a biblical basis. I think that's been clearly demonstrated. It's not arrogance or ignorance if it's true.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Did Jesus come through Mary?

The answer is YES. We obtain "every hope, every grace, and all salvation" thru Jesus who came through Mary.

There is nothing wrong with Marian devotion. We only love Jesus more by honoring His Mother. He LOVES us when we honor His mother.

---

No, Jesus did not come through Mary. Jesus preexisted Mary. Mary merely bore Jesus' as a baby to start his earthly existence.

John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

ALL things were made through Jesus. That includes Mary. Jesus did not come through Mary, it is the other way around - Mary came through Jesus, according to scripture.

No, we don't obtain everything through Mary. We obtain everything through God, through JESUS, not Mary.

The redirect of focus away from Jesus and onto Mary here, trying to give Mary the credit and the glory, honor, and praise for what Jesus should be credited, glorified, honored, and praised for, is such blatant heresy and idolatry. And it's troubling that you defend it. This isn't Marian devotion. This isn't loving Jesus' mother. This is idolatrous Mary worship. It is so sad that you are in such darkness that you can't see it for what it is.

---

Of course Jesus came through Mary. Do you deny His humanity? Wandering off into docetism?

---

Does John 1 show that Mary came through Jesus, or not? And Mary did not give Jesus his humanity. God did. Mary was the chosen vessel through which God (Jesus) worked.

Twist this any way you want. Supporting the belief that everything we get, including salvation, we get through MARY, not Jesus, is heretical and idolatrous, and you are darkness if you don't see this. Even OldBear agrees, even if he is too chicken to declare it.

Eight long posts back to back by BTD, none of them courteous.

That is pretty much the epitome of a rant!

And yes I read your latest attack on me, BTD. Your bitterness and venom should have clued you in that you have lost your way, but I will pray for you to find your way back home.