Zone1 JOHN 6- Did Jesus institute the Eucharist as Roman Catholicism claims?

[theHawk]

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

When did Catholics ever claim the Bible was “infallible”? The Bible is a collection of books.

The question of certain books, like Hebrews, was due to not knowing for sure who the author was. Although the text itself contained no errors or contradictions to the rest of the Bible, the question of authorship was the only thing holding it up. The church wanted to be extra careful about adding such books.

If you do not believe that the early RCC was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then what version of the Bible do you hold to be “infallible”?


Take it from Martin Luther himself:
“We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

 

[theHawk]

If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

The Pope nor any priest or Bishop is infallible. They are men and all men are sinners.
Nowhere does the church teach that they are infallible.

“The Church” on the other hand is the body of Christ. When one properly confesses to their sins and is absolved of them and partakes in holy communion you become a part of that body of Christ, the Church. The Church is also described as his bride. Like in marriage when a man and wife “become one flesh”, Jesus and the Church become one flesh. When we sin it is akin to being unfaithful in a marriage, and a grave enough sin will break the bond, separating us from God.

So “the Church” itself is infallible, as it is connected to Jesus. It is we that are fallible creatures, and only through his mercy are we allowed to be apart of Him.

 

[theHawk]

SORRY BUT LAST TIME i CHECKED Jesus said It was FINISHED. He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of God not coming down millions of times a day all over the world to be eaten again and again by cannibals.

He said it is ACCOMPLISHED. The covenant with the Israelites was completed, and thus the New Covenant begins. It does not mean God’s work is done. It also references what the High Priest would yell when the animal sacrifices for atonement were completed.


You attack those who partake in the New Covenant by calling us “cannibals”, even though Jesus himself said that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.“ John 6:53

 

[rampart]

When did Catholics ever claim the Bible was “infallible”? The Bible is a collection of books.

The question of certain books, like Hebrews, was due to not knowing for sure who the author was. Although the text itself contained no errors or contradictions to the rest of the Bible, the question of authorship was the only thing holding it up. The church wanted to be extra careful about adding such books.

If you do not believe that the early RCC was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then what version of the Bible do you hold to be “infallible”?


Take it from Martin Luther himself:
“We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

the nicene creed is repeated by most christians on the mainstream side of "unitarian/universalist . if it's wrong francis' flock ain't the only one.

He said it is ACCOMPLISHED. The covenant with the Israelites was completed, and thus the New Covenant begins. It does not mean God’s work is done. It also references what the High Priest would yell when the animal sacrifices for atonement were completed.


You attack those who partake in the New Covenant by calling us “cannibals”, even though Jesus himself said that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.“ John 6:53

a good point for theHawk . it seems that a burnt offering is the culinary equivalent of a bar b q . which sounds like an excellent choice for lunch . ....

question for ninja007 and/or evangelicals. is the temple required to resume burnt offerings in your view of apocalypse?

 

[theHawk]

question for @ninja007 and/or evangelicals. is the temple required to resume burnt offerings in your view of apocalypse?

Most of these evangelicals fall to the feet of the Talmudic Jews, the same sort that rejected Jesus.

Like their attacks on the Virgin Mary. At the “Council of Jamnia“, the synagogue of Satan got together and attempted to discredit Jesus. They came up with a new translation of the Greek Septuagint and changed Isaiah’s verse about the virgin to “young woman”. So even though the Greek Septuagint was used by Jews hundreds of years before Jesus, suddenly Christians are supposed to use this new one and defer to the “wisdom of the Jews“? But these fake Jews were called out in Romans and Revelation and are not real Israelites. True Israelites believed in the Messiah and in Jesus. The true spiritual Israelites/Jews are those that believe in Jesus.

These evangelical types fawn over Israel and Jews and can’t wait for them to build a third temple. Real Christians already know that the third temple is in fact Jesus’s risen body and the Church we get to be a part of through communion.

The real reason the Jews are scared to build a third temple is they know that holy pillar of fire and smoke isn’t going to return. It wasn’t even present at the Second Temple because the Jews became so corrupt by the time Jesus arrived. He even told the Pharisees they do not know the Father (John 8:19).

 

[ninja007]

the nicene creed is repeated by most christians on the mainstream side of "unitarian/universalist . if it's wrong francis' flock ain't the only one.


a good point for theHawk . it seems that a burnt offering is the culinary equivalent of a bar b q . which sounds like an excellent choice for lunch . ....

question for ninja007 and/or evangelicals. is the temple required to resume burnt offerings in your view of apocalypse?

no.

 

[ninja007]

He said it is ACCOMPLISHED. The covenant with the Israelites was completed, and thus the New Covenant begins. It does not mean God’s work is done. It also references what the High Priest would yell when the animal sacrifices for atonement were completed.


You attack those who partake in the New Covenant by calling us “cannibals”, even though Jesus himself said that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.“ John 6:53

it was symbolic.

 

[ninja007]

He said it is ACCOMPLISHED. The covenant with the Israelites was completed, and thus the New Covenant begins. It does not mean God’s work is done. It also references what the High Priest would yell when the animal sacrifices for atonement were completed.


You attack those who partake in the New Covenant by calling us “cannibals”, even though Jesus himself said that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.“ John 6:53

ive got about 100 verses including john 3:16 that say youre wrong.

 

[ninja007]

When did Catholics ever claim the Bible was “infallible”? The Bible is a collection of books.

The question of certain books, like Hebrews, was due to not knowing for sure who the author was. Although the text itself contained no errors or contradictions to the rest of the Bible, the question of authorship was the only thing holding it up. The church wanted to be extra careful about adding such books.

If you do not believe that the early RCC was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then what version of the Bible do you hold to be “infallible”?


Take it from Martin Luther himself:
“We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

the rcc isnt needed for salvation. you know this.

 

[ninja007]

Jesus is needed for salvation thats it. Laughing at that youre basically denying Jesus' free gift- not too smart.

 

[Libby von H]

Ridiculous. The deuterocanonical books had always been used by Jews and early Christians. They were part of the Greek Septuagint. It is Martin Luther who unilaterally decided to remove certain books. By what authority did he have? You claim the RCC didn’t have the authority to declare what is canon, yet Martin Luther did? Your premise falls flat on its face yet again.

It's worse than that Pope Luther DID put them in the bakc of the Bible with this insane statement

Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his translation of the German Bible, but he did relocate them to after the Old Testament, calling them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

So is this the Muslim Double Truth theory, PURE NOMINALISM

 

[Libby von H]

the rcc isnt needed for salvation. you know this.

The BIble is the Word of God and the Word of God does not contradict The Church of Jesus , protected from the Gates of Hell.
Poster and many commetators are gong for the invisible Church theory, rightly mocked by anyone who has been in a room of Bible thumping Prods, some accepting the Real Presence and others saying it is symbolic and others saying it is an interpolation and other saying Jesus didn't really say that.
Private Interpretation and Sola Scriptura leads to lesbian bishops praising abortion as in modern Anglican, low Anglican church.
BTW since Pope Benedict set up the Anglican rite as fully Catholic wouldn't an Anglican that really cared about His Faith become one

One of the late Pope Benedict XVI's most notable achievements was to create a personal ordinariate for Anglicans whereby members of the Anglican Communion could enter the Catholic Church while retaining their heritage and liturgy

 

[rampart]

The BIble is the Word of God and the Word of God does not contradict The Church of Jesus , protected from the Gates of Hell.
Poster and many commetators are gong for the invisible Church theory, rightly mocked by anyone who has been in a room of Bible thumping Prods, some accepting the Real Presence and others saying it is symbolic and others saying it is an interpolation and other saying Jesus didn't really say that.
Private Interpretation and Sola Scriptura leads to lesbian bishops praising abortion as in modern Anglican, low Anglican church.
BTW since Pope Benedict set up the Anglican rite as fully Catholic wouldn't an Anglican that really cared about His Faith become one

One of the late Pope Benedict XVI's most notable achievements was to create a personal ordinariate for Anglicans whereby members of the Anglican Communion could enter the Catholic Church while retaining their heritage and liturgy

that is a significent accomplishment of benedict, who will probably be lost in history between john paul and francis. the church has been absorbing congregations and religions since its inception.

macabees is a "history" of the hellenistic era. i love these books which are not in king james , but are in duay translations. they are unique in old testament , being originally written in koine, which makes them pretty new in the bc era.

the scene in mac 1 where ptolemy insists on entering the holy of holies .....well, i'd like to read that again myself.

 

[surada]

It's worse than that Pope Luther DID put them in the bakc of the Bible with this insane statement

Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his translation of the German Bible, but he did relocate them to after the Old Testament, calling them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

So is this the Muslim Double Truth theory, PURE NOMINALISM

What?

The Quran also makes it clear that the Christians will be nearest in love to those who follow the Quran and praises Christians for being humble and wise: You will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki
Christianity and Islam - Wikipedia

 

[surada]

What are 7 deuterocanonical books?
The deuterocanonical texts held as canonical for the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are:
Tobit.
Judith.
Baruch.
Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)
1 Maccabees.
2 Maccabees.
Wisdom.
Additions to Esther: Fulfillment of Mordecai's Dream (Esther 10:4–13) Interpretation of Mordecai's Dream (Vulgate Esther 11)
More items.free encyclopedia[/URL]

Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[theHawk]

the rcc isnt needed for salvation. you know this.

When did I claim it was needed for salvation?

Oh that’s right, I never said that.


You know you’ve lost an argument when you have to lie about what the other said.

 

[theHawk]

Jesus is needed for salvation thats it. Laughing at that youre basically denying Jesus' free gift- not too smart.

Who ever denied Jesus is needed for salvation? Once again you lie about what people are saying.


Do you belong to the church of Satan? You’ve refused to tell us your “infallible” denomination.

 

[Blackrook]

The Eucharist is one of the things that are definitely true because Jesus said so in John Chapter 6.

 

[ninja007]

He said it is ACCOMPLISHED. The covenant with the Israelites was completed, and thus the New Covenant begins. It does not mean God’s work is done. It also references what the High Priest would yell when the animal sacrifices for atonement were completed.


You attack those who partake in the New Covenant by calling us “cannibals”, even though Jesus himself said that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.“ John 6:53

Jesus aint here dude- you cannot take it literally- its symbolic, esp . since He said it while He was alive on earth.

 

[ninja007]

The Eucharist is one of the things that are definitely true because Jesus said so in John Chapter 6.

symbolic. Jesus is in heaven. not on earth today.