I read the article. Are you suggesting that this incident somehow proves that god created the earth in 6 days? That Adam and Eve lived in a magical garden? That Darwin's theory (as updated by modern scientists) is not the best explanation for the evolution of the human race?

Every time I start think you guys are basically normal you post something so off the wall that it's like we're on different planets.

And you know, Hal, that's the whole point of this site: To make YOU feel like "we're" normal. Yep, that's the goal! To prove to Hal, the authority on normalcy, that we are acceptable to him.

LOL

Please.

Hal,

Bethany and I (mostly I) are still learning the ropes with Jill MoveableType thingy...As a result, the posts often need tweaking...okay, so this one needed a LOT of tweaking.

Hope it's clearer now. Evolution never entered into it.

There, are we normal again?

mk,
What is this article about?

I don't understand, how can people put so much trust in the Bible when the people who wrote the Bible only picked the stories they wanted in it. Like the story of Lilith is left out even though it appears to be very important, the story of the first woman. And differently translated versions have vastly different wording, how do we know an English Bible says the same thing as one written in Hebrew? Should we take it literally even if it isn't the real wording?

And that man looks nothing like a monkey. Wait there's a monkey and a man in that picture right? If it's two men then the one on the left looks like a monkey.

And if God created the spiritual world and the material world is from Satan then isn't any pleasure we receive from the Earth evil? Like wouldn't eating delicious food and enjoying a flower filled meadow evil? If God did intend for us to enjoy earthly pleasures shouldn't it include sex?

"If God did intend for us to enjoy earthly pleasures shouldn't it include sex?"
---------------------------------

Yup...hence the statement ot "go forth and multiply on the face of the earth".

Sex IS a gift from God. To be used responsibly for procreation, within the confines of marriage.

Unfortunately that gift is abused in today's society.

And if the Bible is literal why does God have Favorites? He clearly favored Abel over Cain. He detests those who work in fields and the dirt planting and farming but someone has to right? So does he doom people from birth? So maybe he just condemns homosexuals the moment they're conceived. Why would God be so cruel? I can understand if you've had a hard life and God loved you anyway and you went to heaven when you died but to condemn someone for something they had no control over?

RSD but wouldn't having pleasure during sex be sinful? The church used to preach that pleasure during sex is sinful. And what if you absolutely can't afford to have more then say two kids? You're really poor. Should you continue to try and just let them starve? Like in a famine situation in some third world country?

What about infertile people? Why would God deny them such a wonderful gift and also the power to fulfill his will? Do infertile people go to heaven even though they didn't obey his command? What about people who practice celibacy like priest and nuns? If you can't have children can you ever have sex and have it blessed by God? Get married and have it blessed by God even though the purpose of marriage is children?

" He clearly favored Abel over Cain. "

abel offered the acceptable sacrafice and cain intentionally offered that which he knew that the Lord would reject.

Where did you find "The church used to preach that pleasure during sex is sinful"?

I believe "Lust" is what you had in mind not sex.

If you can afford only to have 2 kids then either abstinence or NATURAL Family Planning is in order...you mean to say the parents of these kids put more priority on their sexual lives than the survivial of the kids/ family?

Do you think it's a sin to make images of God? Like in art? He's supposed to be anthropomorphic, at least to the Hebrews. Is there anything about it in the New Testament? And the point of masturbation is it's a sin because it's potential life dying right? So shouldn't girls get married and try to have babies once they begin to ovulate?

roger,
How? How did Cain know? What does that mean about his profession as a farmer? I thought he gave vegetables because he was a farmer and Able lambs because he was a shepherd?

RSD it was in medieval church doctrine. Women weren't supposed to have orgasms. It was actually thought that it was wrong on several levels until about forty years ago.

"If you can afford only to have 2 kids then either abstinence or NATURAL Family Planning is in order...you mean to say the parents of these kids put more priority on their sexual lives than the survival of the kids/ family?"

So is sex a reward for being prosperous? Is it a reward for being rich? You can have sex because you can afford to have the children? And does that mean if you're infertile you shouldn't have sex?

And what if you can't afford a sacrifice? And I totally missed Ash Wednesday. I want to give up soda for Lent, what if it's not good enough? Should I give up other things? How much do I need to give up I always try to live my life without excess, I don't know what to give up!

I don't even drink that much soda. Like once a week at most.

Hi Jess. I'd love to try to help and answer some questions of yours, but you've kind of done this "shotgun blast" where you're shooting all over the place, touching upon lots and lots of issues. Is there one specific thing you're getting at? God love you.

Jess,

Images (of Jesus, Mary, the Saints) are used in remembrance of who we are praying to/ worshipping...

The sin of Idolatry is when the image itself is worshipped. Big difference there. It's like carrying a pic of a loved one in your wallet. We remember/ commemorate the loved one by it.

The problem with masturbation is that it goes against the procreative and unitive purpose of what sex is supposed to be.

Ovulation/ menstruation is a normal cycle for the female body...why would you want to force a girl to have babies if she's not yet ready emotionally/ mentally even if she's ready physically?

Bobby,
Lol, sorry. I was in a history and we were discussing the old testament. My biggest question is, why did the Bible leave out the story of Lilith? And the Bible seems to vary greatly through translations. So is it possible to take it literally?

I love reading and discussing the Bible.

RSD,
Look up the meaning of worship.
You guys do worship Mary and the saints.
Do you not lay down flowers/offerings to the statue of Mary?
Do you not bury little idols in your lawns?

"RSD it was in medieval church doctrine. Women weren't supposed to have orgasms. It was actually thought that it was wrong on several levels until about forty years ago".
---------------------------------

Hmmm...40 yrs ago would be about the time of the 2nd Vatican Council...but I don't recall anything relating to this particular issue....would you have a link, perhaps?

Hang on RSD, I don't know if the Church recently said anything about it but I know there were many doctors who felt women who achieved a clitoral orgasm were unhealthy. BRB

Anon,

We do NOT worship Mary, we Venerate her (look that up). We do NOT worship the Saints, we pray to them to pray for us (since basically, they are already in Heaven). Worhsip is reserved for GOD alone.

We offer flowers to remember/ commemorate Mary's love for us. We don't ofer it to the statue/ image per se.

What little idols?

ok, RSD, whatever you say.

oh, the little idols you plant in your lawns that are supposedly supposed to bless your houses or sell them quickly? St. Joseph idol statue? You don't know about the little idol guy?

Anon,

That is superstition...the Church does not believe nor condone that.

If I remember correctly, it's a practice only done here in the US.

Hehe, tis quite alright Jess. I certainly admire the curious nature.

"My biggest question is, why did the Bible leave out the story of Lilith? And the Bible seems to vary greatly through translations. So is it possible to take it literally?"

Well, several of my protestant friends on this blog will disagree with my answer, but we (Catholics) believe that the reason that anything is in the bible or not in the bible is because of the authority of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture at the Councils of Carthage in 397 and proclaimed the canon infallible at the council of Trent in the 16th century. So I believe that the reason anything is in the bible is because of the authority of the Catholic Church which Jesus gave. So the reason it isn't in scripture is because the story of Lilith was not written by the Holy Spirit.

Now as far as your second question goes, we believe that only the original writings from the pens of the mean who wrote the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is possible that there could be some textual variation and even some copiest errors. We have a good 5000 documents, though, of scripture from antiquity, so we have very good reason to believe that the scripture we have today is excruciatingly close to what the apostles originally wrote. But that being said, again I would say that we look to the Catholic Church for proper interpretation and understanding. If we read something in the bible and interpret it in a certain way, and that way flatly contradicts something taught by the Catholic Church, then our interpretation must be wrong. If not, we are free to hold to it. WE also don't read the bible "literally" in the sense that "the words on the page are mean exactly what the words mean. No, we look to see what the author was trying to convey, whether he was speaking literally, poetically, telling a story to convey a point, etc. I could go on forever, but does that help? God love you.

"Catholicism defines chastity as the virtue that moderates the sexual appetite."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#_ref-12
It is the thirteenth reference, I couldn't copy it for some reason. I'll try to find better sources.

"RSD,
Look up the meaning of worship.
You guys do worship Mary and the saints.
Do you not lay down flowers/offerings to the statue of Mary?
Do you not bury little idols in your lawns?"

This is false. Laying down flowers constitutes worship? People lay flowers down in front of tombs of deceased. How does burring idols imply worship? We worship God, and God alone.

Bobby...you da MAN!! Great Apologistic answer, bro!

In fact, anon, look up hyperdulia. That is what we give to Mary, and Mary alone.

Jess,

You're going to Wikipedia as your source for Catholic teachings?

I would rather suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church...here's the link, direct from the Vatican:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Here we see God commanding "idolitry" in Exodus 25:18-20.

"18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover."

Thanks RSD. Jess, he's right. The Catechism is a sure teaching norm.

Whatever you want to believe, Bobby. Just like people don't ACTUALLY murder people, they just put them out of their misery. Spin it all you want, you guys worship idols and pray to saints.

I remember reading that in the bible, you know, about how God is too busy to answer all prayers.

Bobby,
I'm just not comfortable with the idea that a person can be infallible. It's human nature to make mistakes I just can't conceive that there is a person that is always right, never makes any mistakes and that this one person knows what is best for me and what God wants me as an individual to do. If he does see me as an individual, I like to think he does and just doesn't clump us together. I want God to be omnipotent.

Also what about sacrifices in the story of Cain and Able? Does God truly abhor farmers?

Anon, you don't understand Catholic theology. It has nothing to do with God "not having time". Even anti-Catholic James R. White admits that Catholics don't worship Mary and statues.

Bobby,
Oh, so you DO think idol worship is OK because you twisted thoses verses to condone idol worship? You know, there's some verses about not eating swine. Do you eat anything that comes from a pig???
Look at why they were commanded to build it, who the people were, and at what time in history it was done. Also look at God's purpose for it. It should be a real eye-opener!

Jess,

..you, generally, summed up the gist of Salvation History...

I've seen Catholics kissing the feet of the Mary statues, Bobby. It's idol worship. Period.

RSD,
Thanks for the link I book marked it to read later. And what is Salvation History?

Phase of beginning, sin, judgement and revival? I don't understand.

Anonymous, are you Jill Stanek? Who are you?

Jess,

A person being infallible on their own merits? No way. But does God have the power to do that? God can do anything that doesn't violate his nature, so sure. It is the promise of Jesus Christ, God himself, that assures us that the Pope when speaking on faith and morals is infallible. Now that DOES NOT mean he is always right and doesn't make mistakes. Infallibility is a negative charism. It says that the Pope (along with all bishops in union) can not teach error as truth or truth as error. It's worth taking the time to ponder exactly what that means. And God most certainly sees you as an individual.

"If he does see me as an individual, I like to think he does and just doesn't clump us together. I want God to be omnipotent."

Now I'm not sure what you mean by this... But to reitterate, it's the promise of Christ that we trust in. It's Jesus who set up this whole hierarchy to teach in his name, a visible church.

"Also what about sacrifices in the story of Cain and Able? Does God truly abhor farmers?"

Why do you think he abhors farmers? God's justice must be satisfied. In the OT, the only way to do that was some sort of sacrifice, although this could never atone. But Christ's death did atone, once and for all. He satisfied God's sense of justice. God love you.

Anon, you miss the point. God commanded them to build it for HIM. That is why we have statues of Saints; the same reason; for HIM. They remind us of our older brothers and sisters who have gone before us in the Lord. Mary takes no more glory away from Jesus than the moon takes away glory from the sun; she reflects it.

Read Luke 1 along with 2 Samuel 6. Luke shows how Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Mary leaves for the hill country of Judea for 3 months; David travels to the hill country of Judea for three months. The baby in the womb leaps for joy; David dances around the ark. Elizabeth says "who am i that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"; David says "who am i that the ark should come to me?" While the ark contained God's word in stone, Mary the new ark of the covenant contained God's word in flesh. Look at how the ancient Israel treated the ark of the old covenant. Shouldn't we treat the ark of the new covenant with that much more reverence?

Bobby,
"It's worth taking the time to ponder exactly what that means."
Alright I'll go do just thank. Thank you for taking the time to answer, God love you too : )

Jess,
Do yourself a HUGE favor, and just ask God to show you the answers to your questions.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

"I've seen Catholics kissing the feet of the Mary statues, Bobby. It's idol worship. Period."

Have you ever kissed a picture of your mother or your family? I have. Does that mean I worship my family?

"Alright I'll go do just thank. Thank you for taking the time to answer, God love you too : )"

Anytime, my friend. Hey, are you on FB?

Bobby,
I didn't miss the point at all. You guys did. God did this to have people obey Him. That's all He wants us to do. He did not tell us to build statues of Mary, He did not tell us to pray to her. He did not tell us to bury statues of Joseph in our yards, and he did not tell us to kneel down and pray to paintings. He did tell us to obey Him and worship HIM ONLY.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Not Mary or the saints you pray to. One, Bobby...Jesus Christ. You guys really don't pray to him much, you know.

Yeah I have a FB and am obsessed with it. I gave it up for Lent last year, but after getting mono and being put on bed rest it was the only thing I could do.

Have you ever kissed a picture of your mother or your family? I have. Does that mean I worship my family?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 8, 2008 1:15 PM

No I have not. It's the reason you're doing it, Bobby. What on earth will you guys do when you meet God face to face and try to tell him why you prayed to people other than Him?

"Jesus Christ. You guys really don't pray to him much, you know."

That is a lie. Do not slander my Catholic brethren.

"I didn't miss the point at all. You guys did. God did this to have people obey Him. That's all He wants us to do. He did not tell us to build statues of Mary, He did not tell us to pray to her. He did not tell us to bury statues of Joseph in our yards, and he did not tell us to kneel down and pray to paintings. He did tell us to obey Him and worship HIM ONLY."

Did God tell you to post on blogs? Where in the bible does it teach that everything we're supposed to do is in the bible?

If your understanding of 1 Tim 2:5 is true, then you can never ask anyone to pray for you. Because anytime you ask someone to pray for you, they are acting as a mediator. This would contradict 1 Tim 2:1, a mere 4 verses ago, where Paul asks that prayers, supplications, thanksgiving, and petitions be offered for everyone. He is asking you and I to pray for others, to act as a mediator.

"It's the reason you're doing it"

The reason I do it is out of respect and love for them, like the respect and love I have for Mary and the saints. To answer your other question, look at Rev 5:8. "
When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones."

The elders offer up the prayers of the holy ones (us) to heaven. There it is, right in Revelation, the elders mediating for us, putting our prayers before the throne of the Lamb.

Anon: "...He did not tell us to build statues of Mary, He did not tell us to pray to her."
---------------------------------
CCC 971:

""All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. "

Anon, what religious denomination are you?
and why such hatred in your writings?

"If your understanding of 1 Tim 2:5 is true, then you can never ask anyone to pray for you. Because anytime you ask someone to pray for you, they are acting as a mediator. This would contradict 1 Tim 2:1, a mere 4 verses ago, where Paul asks that prayers, supplications, thanksgiving, and petitions be offered for everyone. He is asking you and I to pray for others, to act as a mediator."

Yes, Bobby, I can ask anyone to pray for me. AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRAYING TO JESUS! I have NEVER asked anyone to pray to Mary or any other saint for that matter for me, nor would I ever.

I respect Mary and many others from the bible, too, Bobby. The difference is that I DO NOT worship them or pray to them. I can't wait to meet them all in Heaven, but that's it, Bobby.

And regarding Jesus, I'm not slandering your catholic brethren. From all of my time out at the mill, I have NEVER seen a catholic pray to Jesus. Not once Bobby. But at thousands and thousands of prayers to Mary and other people you guys pray to. When I was Catholic, Bobby, there wasn't much praying to Jesus. He was always in the background in the church, but Mary, she was definately in the foreground.

Bobby,
The verse from Revelation was AFTER the rapture. We will be up in heaven at that time.

Anon,

How would you know if anybody's praying to Jesus or not? I certainly would not know...

as a former Catholic..have you ever heard of the phrase "To Jesus, thru Mary"?

Have you ever read/ understood the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

RSD, There's no hatred here, and I'm sorry if I'm coming off seeming as so. It's just frustrating to me, that's all.

Anon, What's so frustrating?

RSD,
You guys pray out loud 99% of the time.

Our praying too loud is furstrating you??

RSD,
No, I was answering this:

Anon,

How would you know if anybody's praying to Jesus or not? I certainly would not know...

"Yes, Bobby, I can ask anyone to pray for me. AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRAYING TO JESUS! I have NEVER asked anyone to pray to Mary or any other saint for that matter for me, nor would I ever."

This is exactly what we do. The only difference is that Mary and the Saints have finished their earthly lives. Then they give the prayers to Jesus. I ask you to pray for me, and you pray to Jesus. I ask Mary to pray for me, and she prays to Jesus. No difference. In fact, James 5:16 says "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." Who is more righteous than those who are in heaven?

"I respect Mary and many others from the bible, too, Bobby. The difference is that I DO NOT worship them or pray to them. I can't wait to meet them all in Heaven, but that's it, Bobby."

I respect that. Perahps we were both a bit heated. You are obviously very passionate.

"And regarding Jesus, I'm not slandering your catholic brethren. From all of my time out at the mill, I have NEVER seen a catholic pray to Jesus. Not once Bobby. But at thousands and thousands of prayers to Mary and other people you guys pray to. When I was Catholic, Bobby, there wasn't much praying to Jesus. He was always in the background in the church, but Mary, she was definately in the foreground."

Thank you. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm also sorry that the teachings of the Church were poorly taught to you (not your fault at all, catechesis was HORRIBLE in my day too) But like I said, Mary reflects Jesus' glory. She is the ark of the new covenant, the new Eve, the Queen Mother. Any "celebration" of her (the assumption, the immaculate conception) is really a celebration of Jesus. Because only an all-powerful God could take a creature, a human being like Mary and keep her from being stained by original sin. It's a celebration of Jesus and his goodness. I think you don't know what you left. Look at these quotes http://catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp from all the early Church Fathers about the intercession of the saints. As St. Paul tells us, we are the body of Christ, with Jesus as the head. We are all in this together. God uses weak and sinful men like all the saints to help us. Not because God can't do it, but because we are a divine family. God love you, Anon, my brother in Christ.

Anon,

I'm curious, if you don't mind...what made you leave the Church?

"The verse from Revelation was AFTER the rapture. We will be up in heaven at that time."

Oh boy. I'm not getting into the whole rapture debate...

But actually, who's prayers are they then?

RSD,
The truth.

Bobby,
Maybe things have changed alot in the church from back in the days I was there. However, alot of things haven't. Just do one thing, Bobby. Ask Jesus to show you if He wants you to pray to Mary. That's all.

I missed my chance to ask last time, and would like to ask if Catholics believe that when saints go to Heaven, they are omnipresent?

The reason I ask is because when I ask friends to pray for me when I need it because I know that they can hear me and are close to me. But what I have never understood about Catholic theology is why they pray to people in Heaven... Wouldn't they have to be omnipresent in order to hear all of the prayers of catholics around the world?

Are angels even omnipresent? From the Bible, it sounds as though they have specific duties (for instance, Gabriel had the duty of telling Mary she would conceive. An angel had the duty of telling Hagar to go back, etc), and are not able to be everywhere at the same time. I believe that the only one who can be omnipresent is God, and that is why, although I do not want to cause you any disrespect, I simply just don't understand praying to saints.

Bobby,
One more thing. I really appreciate your love for God and others. You're a very kind man.

Absolutely...Bobby is one of the kindest people you'll ever meet.

Anon,

If you mean the Truth as in Jesus, that still doesn't answer the question...why leave the Church that Christ founded 2,000 years ago?

But Anon, things haven't changed since the first centuries! Look at the quotes I provided. Those who knew the apostles understood to pray to Mary and the Saints.

"Ask Jesus to show you if He wants you to pray to Mary. That's all."

I will do this, but Anon, how do I know if I have Jesus' answer? How do I distinguish Jesus from the pepperoni pizza I had last night? This opens up to too much subjectivity.

I had members of the LDS come to my door a few weeks ago, and they told me to ask God to reveal to me whether or not the Book of Mormon was true. They said I should feel a "burning in my bosom." Now I'm sure that they are well meaning people, but they at one point have prayed to God to let them know if the Book of Mormon was true, and they received a burning in the bosom. Who am I to tell them that their burning in the bosom wasn't from God, but the fact that I heard God tell me not to pray to Mary is real? It's my word against theirs.

God did not simply leave us with a book and say interpret it for yourselves. The founding fathers of the US didn't even do that. They didn't hand us the constitution and say "here, everyone interpret it for yourself in the spirit of George Washington." No, they set up a visible hierarchy. We believe that Jesus did the same as well, so that his teaching would not be confused. God love you.

"One more thing. I really appreciate your love for God and others. You're a very kind man."

Thank you, and I'm sorry I was so hostile towards you earlier. God love you.

That's a great question Bethany, and thank you too for your kind words. You are very special to me :)

The answer is no; angels, saints, no one is omnipresent except God. But, even though you don't agree with our theology, I think you would agree that God has the power to "expand the mind" of any saint (or person on earth) he wishes. So, if say, 45,000 people are praying to Mary all at the same time (of course, what does time really mean in heaven?), God is aware that this is happening and can "let Mary know" and "expand her mind" to receive all 45,000 of those prayers at the "same time." So they are not omnipresent, but God can "let them know what they need to know." God love you, Bethany.

Bobby the difference between the situation you described, and how we look at it is that we are looking for the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, not our feelings, not ourselves at all. What is the Holy Spirit's job, according to the Bible? To convict our hearts, to give us insight into God's Holy Word. To fill us with God's spirit.
We cannot trust our feelings. It is the Holy Spirit who can lead us to all truth.
Does that make sense the way I wrote it? I've been in such a hurry all day because I am trying to get an article written, so please forgive me if I've made it confusing.

The answer is no; angels, saints, no one is omnipresent except God. But, even though you don't agree with our theology, I think you would agree that God has the power to "expand the mind" of any saint (or person on earth) he wishes. So, if say, 45,000 people are praying to Mary all at the same time (of course, what does time really mean in heaven?), God is aware that this is happening and can "let Mary know" and "expand her mind" to receive all 45,000 of those prayers at the "same time." So they are not omnipresent, but God can "let them know what they need to know." God love you, Bethany.

God love you too, Bobby. :-) The problem I see with that is, if God can expand their minds to hear our prayers, then direct them to Him, why wouldn't He just listen to our prayers in the first place? The Bible says time and time again that we can seek God Himself in prayer, and I don't see any implication that we'd even need someone in Heaven to pray for us, when God himself is already in Heaven. Why not go straight to the source?

Bobby, I didn't think you were hostile at all.

When you ask Jesus something, you will KNOW when He answers you, and you will KNOW it's coming from HIM. You definately won't second-guess it.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

No, that certainly makes sense, and I understand what you're saying and agree with it even. But I guess what I was saying is that my LDS friends really and truly believe that it was God (or the Holy Spirit) who caused that burning in their bosom. So what I mean is how do I distinguish the Holy Spirit's worth from my own feelings that maybe I'm forcing on a passage without realizing it?

For example, (to use something that I know you've been busily discussing lately) I'm sure you've prayed many times on Gen 1, and know that the Holy Spirit has spoken to you and told you that it is a literal account (or something like that... let me know if I'm totally misunderstanding something). But I'm sure there are other Christians who have also prayed to the Holy Spirit, asking him for guidance, and have come to a different conclusion when it comes to Gen 1. (I don't mean to pick on you, Bethany, I just want to use something that is probably relevant.) So how do you know which one of you really was spoken to by the Holy Spirit and which one, though meaning well, was mistaken? Or how can we tell our LDS friends that what they experienced was not of the Holy Spirit when they so fervently think that it is? This is tough, deep stuff. God love you.

Bethany,

"God love you too, Bobby. :-) The problem I see with that is, if God can expand their minds to hear our prayers, then direct them to Him, why wouldn't He just listen to our prayers in the first place? The Bible says time and time again that we can seek God Himself in prayer, and I don't see any implication that we'd even need someone in Heaven to pray for us, when God himself is already in Heaven. Why not go straight to the source?"

Well, I think that can be answered in some of the verses I quoted above, such as 1 Tim 3:1 and James 5:16. Being members of the body of Christ, we all work together to help each other. I pray for you, Bethany. But why can't you just go directly to God for yourself? Well, you can, and there really is no "need" for my prayers for you. But in verses like 1 Tim 3:1, we are asked to pray for others. It's part of what Catholics call "the communion of saints." Why did God send angels to tell people things? Couldn't he have done it himself? Absolutely. But God shares his work with his children. He chooses to raise his sons and daughters up to his level.

Look at 1 Cor 3:9, where we are called God's "coworkers." What is this? Can't God get the job done himself? Well, of course he can, but this is exactly what a loving Father does. He raises up his sons and daughters to his level, to let us participate in his glorious work.

So we never "need" to pray to anyone else but God. But we believe it pleases him to have one of his children try and intercede for one of his other children. Is it not wonderful when one of your children helps a younger one who has fallen down to get back up? Now you could help the little one up, and probably do a better job. But do you see where I'm going with this? Everything that we believe and practice needs to be interpreted in light of God's divine Fatherhood; because that's who he is from all eternity to all eternity- a Father. The Father. Our Father.

Oh I forgot to talk about James. He tells us that the prayer of a righteous man is powerful. Who is more righteous than those who have seen the face of God? As wonderful as it is to have those here on earth praying for me, those in heaven would most likely have more "pull" (whatever that means!) with God.

Anon,

This is the prayer most commonly addressed to Mary by Catholics:
(Sorry if this was already mentioned by someone else.)

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death. Amen.

You can see that we are asking Mary to pray for us, we are not worshipping her.

God love you too, Bobby. :-) The problem I see with that is, if God can expand their minds to hear our prayers, then direct them to Him, why wouldn't He just listen to our prayers in the first place? The Bible says time and time again that we can seek God Himself in prayer, and I don't see any implication that we'd even need someone in Heaven to pray for us, when God himself is already in Heaven. Why not go straight to the source?

Posted by: Bethany at February 8, 2008 2:19 PM

Bethany,
Wouldn't Mary & the saints then be mediators between God and man?

Bobby,

I nominate you for sainthood for being an untiring defender of the faith. Isn't the title of this thread ironic?

"Things Aren't Always the Way They Look"

They are mediators only in the sense that if I pray for you, I am a mediator. We would understand the mediatorship that Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim 2 as the only one who could make it even possible for us humans to communicate with God. Jesus is Jacob's ladder from Genesis (as Jesus mentions in John 1, around verse 40 or so??) And Jesus is the only one who can do that. He was the only one to redeem sins and "bridge the gap" (via the ladder) between heaven and earth. But Mary, the saints, you and I, we are mediators in this other, lower sense. So we believe the word mediator in 1 Tim is used in a different sense then just simply someone who petitions on behalf of another. Thats what Mary, the saints, and you and I do when we pray for eachother; we petition on behalf of one another. But Christ's mediatorship is soooooo much more than just that!

Janet,

Honestly, please look up the word worship.

She's not the mother of God, she's the mother of earthly Jesus. If she were the mother of God, she would have been here before Him. She wasn't. God always was, and always will be.

I'm full of God's grace, too, and the Lord is with me also. I am blessed by God, and so is my child. Trust me, I would NEVER ask someone to pray to me.

"I nominate you for sainthood for being an untiring defender of the faith."

God love you, Janet, but I am so far away from sainthood it is not even funny. All that mediation I've been talking about? I need it! Please pray for me, and I'll pray for you too.

Anon, you should come up with a name. I don't want to lose you among the other Anons. I feel like I"ve met you and made a friend, so why don't you come up with some name so we can all know who you are in future posts?

Ok,

Just got here and I have to weigh in...

Story.

In Medjugorje, where Mary has been appearing to six (what were then children, but are now adults)for the last 20 some odd years, was very skeptical. So he went into the "apparition room" with the children one night. He brought the sacred host with him, figuring that if this vision was from satan, satan would be unable to do his voodoo with Jesus in the room.

At the moment that Mary appeared, the six children simultaneously fell to their knees, eyes fixed on a spot in front of them.

The priest also attempted to kneel, but found that he couldn't. He told the children what was happening and asked why he was unable to kneel.

They responded that Mary was kneeling. She said that as long as the priest was holding Jesus in his hand, he would be unable to kneel. Because Jesus never bows down to Mary, but rather Mary bows down to Him...

Next,

I hear a lot of this "Catholics don't pray to Jesus", "They don't have a personal relationship with Him", "They don't spend time with Him"...

Nonsense. We believe in the true presence. Which means every Sunday at Mass I not only get to be in the room with the "PHYSICAL" Jesus, present in the flesh, but I get to consume Him, take Him into my own body. How much closer can one get to Him than that? And every Sunday I spend an hour sitting with Him in the adoration chapel. Just me and Him, sharing an hour and our innermost thoughts. Talking and chatting it up, just like we're doing now.

Can't find that in a Unitarian or Non Denominational church.

Bobby,
If your sins have been washed away by Jesus' blood, then you are righteous in His eyes.

Mary is no more reighteouss than you are. You were both born with sin, and you both believe what Jesus did on that cross, and you are both cleasned an made righteous in His eyes. The only difference is that Mary sees God's face, literally. By no means does that make her any more pure in His sight than you are. (and of course I'm assuming you do belive in what Jesus did on the cross).

Janet,

You can see that we are asking Mary to pray for us, we are not worshipping her.

Not to mention that it is right from scripture...

"She's not the mother of God, she's the mother of earthly Jesus. If she were the mother of God, she would have been here before Him. She wasn't. God always was, and always will be."

You have to be careful here, though. Who was Jesus? Jesus was God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Hence, she was the mother of God. There was a heresy in the early church called Nestorianism, which said basically that Mary gave birth to Jesus' human nature, but not his divine nature. Yet, we cannot separate the two. We don't give birth to natures, we give birth to persons. The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism, and in doing so, gave Mary the title of Theotokus, meaning God bearer. This does not mean that Mary is older than God, though. To say that would be to project our human understanding of relationships onto God. Jesus is the son of God, yet he is not younger than God. Mary is the mother of God, yet she is not older than God. So if you don't want to call her mother of God, you run into the problem of what Mary gave birth to. Was it a person, or was it a nature?

"I'm full of God's grace, too, and the Lord is with me also. I am blessed by God, and so is my child."

Amen brother, I have no doubt. Now I am no Greek expert, and I won't pretend to be, but it is my understanding that the Greek phrase "full of grace" implies a state of always having been. In other words, I think in Greek, what it means is that Mary was full of grace, and always has been. But that's worth looking into for yourself. I think that's correct, though.

Anon,

Mary is no more reighteouss than you are. You were both born with sin

Actually, (and I'm almost afraid to bring this up) but we don't believe that Mary was born with original sin. This is why we say she is "full" of grace...as in couldn't add any more grace. Full. To the top.

And while you may not think she was any great shakes, and wonder how God will react when he accuses us of praying "to" (how many times must we explain that it's "with") Mary, I gotta wonder what He'll say to you when He accuses you of "dissing" His mother.

Anon, Mary was NOT born with sin. At least not in Catholic understanding. She was given the grace of God in such away that she was born free of original sin. She also lived a sinless life, thus leading to God asking her to bear His son, to which, of course, she said yes.

and MK comes to the rescue to a better explanation just before my post. Lol.

WOW! Dan, I thought you were dead!

nag I'm alive, just been away from the site for the while, and the computer in general.

Havent even had a chance to update my blog with super tuesday stuff, now I may just let it pass by and link to another place for it and just blog about the rest of the primaries.

Anonymous,

With all due respect, I think you've been listening to too much anti-Catholic rhetoric. I'm shocked at the misinformation out there about the Catholic Church. (See for example www.landover baptist.org/sermons/dangcatholics.)

I'll try to explain my point. I don't know if you believe in the Holy Trinity - one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Catholics believe Mary is the mother of Jesus who is one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary, therefore she is called the Mother of God.

According to cptryon.org(not an official source but it sums this up better than I could):

The prayer (The Hail Mary) calls upon Mary, who is full of grace and close to her Son, to intercede for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. With the disciple to whom Jesus entrusted her on Calvary when he said: "Behold your mother," we share her as mother. Mary will always bring Christ into our life. From the beginning she knew him; she witnessed his life, death and resurrection; will she not help us to know him and the mysteries of his life? We trust her to care for us as she cared for the newly married couple at Cana in Galilee. We can trust her with our needs.

It is all scripturally based.

Catholics LOVE MARY as Jesus LOVES His Mother. Would Jesus be anything BUT pleased?

Anon,

CORRECTION: "You were both born with sin, and you both believe what Jesus did on that cross, and you are both cleasned an made righteous in His eyes"...

Mary was CONCEIVED w/o original sin (hence the title of Immaculate Concepcion)...hence was not born with with sin as you claimed...this is a Dogma of the Church.

It's like when you step into a muddy puddle (original sin), you are cleansed later via Baptism...in Mary's case, she was prevented from stepping into the puddle (original sin).

LOL,

I can't hold a candle to Bobby tho...

I did want to add to Jess' question about Cain and Abel.

Any time God makes a covenant with us, he requires a sacrifice involving blood...up to and including sacrificing himself.

Cains' sacrifice was bloodless. Abel involved killing an animal.

I believe this was a teaching moment for humanity, but Cain not only didn't get it, he got ticked off for being corrected. Oh that pride...

Bobby,
so you're saying that God had a mother? That would mean that she was right there with Him during creation?

mk,
You're right. You won't find that in a Unitarian or Non Denominational church. Satan is the master of deception. He will use his powers to decieve many with wonders and signs. Beware!

Dan, Mary WAS born with sin. The catholics made up the levels of sin.

MK,
I'm not "dissing" Mary. I admire her faith, but that's it. You had better be careful of "dissing" God when you worship something other than Him.

Well, your FB status says you're dead... FB lied to me...

nag = nah, for the record, lol

Wait what? Are you talking about FaceBook?

RSD,
That's the church's dogma. Again, you guys made that up. It's not from scripture.

"so you're saying that God had a mother? That would mean that she was right there with Him during creation?"

Yes. No. Again, to us, we only know of a mother as someone older than us. But why does that need to be the case for God? Again, who did Mary give birth to? Jesus. Who was Jesus? Jesus is God. She didn't birth Jesus' human nature, she gave birth to the PERSON Jesus, who is a divine person. Mary gave birth to a divine person. It does not follow that Mary had to be around before God or older than God or anything like that. That's the way human nature works. But Jesus had a divine nature.

ohh, right.

Yeah, ridiculously tired, aka dead. Woo for slang.

Indeed I we are, Jess. That's why i wanted to know if you're on. We an be friends!

ohh, right.

Yeah, ridiculously tired, aka dead. Woo for slang.

Go to the group, I can haz choice kthxbai and I'm an administrator. You'll know who I am : )

UGH double post.

"Dan, Mary WAS born with sin. The catholics made up the levels of sin."

Anon, (I'd really like to call you something else :) ) Take a look at 1 John 5:16-17? A partial quote, "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly." The "deadly" sin that John refers to we call "mortal." The nondeadly sin we call "venial." I'd say the bible made up the levels of sin.

AHH! I'm in that group I think Jess....or I ignored it since im in SAWRTC

MK,
I'm not "dissing" Mary. I admire her faith, but that's it. You had better be careful of "dissing" God when you worship something other than Him.

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why neither I nor any other Catholic would dream of doing such a thing.

He will use his powers to decieve many with wonders and signs. Beware!

Bobby graciously said that he would ask God to guide him to the Truth. Maybe you could do the same. Catholics are not the only ones capable of being deceived. Protestants are just as vulnerable. Perhaps the Spirit has been speaking to you, is in fact speaking to you right now, but His voice is falling on deaf ears.

In all the time that we have been discussing the two churches (today and last week) no one on the Catholic side has insinuated that you are following satan, believing lies, or following evil. We have patiently explained our view, refrained from sounding arrogant, and avoided making you feel inadequate. Why is it that you can't do the same?

I am very comfortable in my Truth and don't find it necessary to belittle you or anyone else to prove it. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Who are you trying to convince?

Done, Jess. You'd better not ignore my friend request...:)

Wow, that was fast! You're on the ball, Jess!

Bobby,
Yay for FB friends!

Dan,
That group rocks join and write on the wall.

Mary being sinless is an interpretation of various lines of scripture Anon, there is nothing "direct" so if you're completely literal, all I can really give you is the greeting Mary receives from an angel in Luke 1: "Hail, Full of Grace!" i.e. completelry full of grace, i.e. sinless. There's a decent explanation of it all here though im sure MK will find a better way/website

"That's the church's dogma. Again, you guys made that up. It's not from scripture."
------------------------------------------

True, it's not from Holy Scripture BUT in the Catholic church, we also have Holy Traditions.

I think this is where our teachings/ understandings depart...the Immacualte Concepcion is a doctrine of the Church according to Holy Tradition.

I don't see then a problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

Bobby, 2:50,

Deal. God bless you and your family!

Right, Bobby. There are two different types of sin. The sin of the born again (righteous) which does not warrant eternal death, and the sins of the non-believers that does warrant eternal death.

Here, PLEASE read it.

1 John 5:16-20
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Jess, I cant join unless invited, I have far too many groups, lol. Let's see if I'm in it or not...

Let's also keep in mind that theres MK, RSD, Janet, me, and now Dan (?!?!) arguing the Catholic position against Anon. It's tough to go 5 on 1. We just want to discuss some things, but if they get too overwhelming or you feel like you're being ganged up on, we can all chill. We're all in this together.

Jess, I'm not in it, but I did friend request you.

Do you know anyone named Kerrie Grella by any chance? She's a year below you.

"We're all in this together.."
-------------------------------

Sounds like the song from High School Musical...*LOL*

Bobby, when I have at least some knowledge, I argue with what I have. I did use to be a member of the Faith and pieces of it certainly do remain and resound with me. However, I can't fully accept it. I see religion as an all or nothing deal in terms of belief in the teachings, and I cant get behind all the teachings of the Church.

Dan,

Which teaching can't you accept?

Dan,
What IS God's grace?
I have been saved by His grace, therefore, I am also filled with His grace. Grace does not mean sinless.

Thats right, Anon. You pretty much articulated the Catholic understanding. By definition, the sins of those that warrant eternal death are mortal, and sins that do not warrant eternal death are venial. The only difference is that you claim that any sin that a "saved" person commits is not a sin unto death. However, I see nothing in the text that says that those who are saved are cannot commit sins that are not unto death. Now this is clearly going to move into a OSAS discussion...

RSD: enough, lol.

Some of the main contentions I have is the Church's stance on birth control, the belief of the infallibility of the Bible, and the power/role of the Pope.

mk,
I'm sorry you feel so offended. Was never my intention. I wasn't really having a discussion with you throughout this thread. When you addressed one of my responses to someone else, I simply responded back to you. Do you really think that there was nothing offensive in your post to me?

I'll tell you what. I promise I will never respond to one of your posts going forward. That way, you'll never feel offended by any of my posts again. Deal?

@Dan, friend request accepted! No I don't think I know her...

"Bobby, when I have at least some knowledge, I argue with what I have. I did use to be a member of the Faith and pieces of it certainly do remain and resound with me. However, I can't fully accept it. I see religion as an all or nothing deal in terms of belief in the teachings, and I cant get behind all the teachings of the Church."

Although I disagree with your decision to leave the church, I do respect the fact that you don't continue to call yourself a Catholic, yet believe teachings contrary to Catholic thought. I think it shows a great deal of respect as well as maturity (and for such a young whippersnapper like yourself!)

Bobby,
Where does it say in scripture that Mary was born without sin?

Hmmm...I guess those teachings will require much prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Anon, I gave you a link to the catholic understanding of an undercurrent that was noticed, and then emphasized. I dont expect you to be "converted," or even to fully understand the Catholic view, but the explanation is fairly decent and I think you could at least sift through it and at least semi-understand it, or maybe come up with more questions about it rather than simply flat out denying it. You wont believe it, you arent Catholic, its to be expected. But it can be understood, at least in one fashion or another.

RSD,
High School Musical is all that seems to be on at my house anymore!! AAAAAAHHHHHH!
My 4 year old calls it Highsical Musical.

Carla...I agree...my 11 year-old keeps watching it every chance she gets!

Dan,
I'll check it out right now. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
:)

woo Jess!

And darn, I think that would've made it hilarious.

Wow, I never knew you were within an hour or so (I think...) drive from me. Least when your at school. Now to actually get my license and a car....

Anon,

Actually, to us, Grace does mean sinless. When we are baptized, we erase the stain of original sin. After we go to confession, we are in a "state of Grace".

Grace (gratia, Charis), in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness.

Before the Council of Trent, the Schoolmen seldom distinguished actual grace from sanctifying grace. But, in consequence of modern controversies regarding grace, it has become usual and necessary in theology to draw a sharper distinction between the transient help to act (actual grace) and the permanent state of grace (sanctifying grace). For this reason we adopt this distinction as our principle of division in our exposition of the Catholic doctrine. In this article we shall treat only of actual grace. (See also SANCTIFYING GRACE.)

Actual grace derives its name, actual, from the Latin actualis (ad actum), for it is granted by God for the performance of salutary acts and is present and disappears with the action itself. Its opposite, therefore, is not possible grace, which is without usefulness or importance, but habitual grace, which causes a state of holiness, so that the mutual relations between these two kinds of grace are the relation between action and state, not those between actuality and potentiality. Later, we shall discuss habitual grace more fully under the name of sanctifying or justifying grace. As to actual grace, we have to examine: (1) its Nature; (2) its Properties. The third, and difficult, question of the relationship between grace and liberty shall be reserved for discussion in the article CONTROVERSIES ON GRACE.

ok people..gotta go! I njoyed the discussions...

Have a good weekend y'all!

Yeah all, its been fun, but my moms gunna be here to pick me up and take her back to her place soon. Once there I have to clean my room since the land lady's having an open house tommorow.

So after that cleaning, and most likely dinner, I'll be back. But it'll probably be later tonight. Maybe I'll stop in while cleaning so I dont fall too far behind in the discussion....

Dan you live near Boston right? I'm closer when I'm at home I live on the South Coast.

Anon,

I really don't want to get into a he said/she said argument with you. You have not offended me. I'm a little more thick skinned than that. I chimed in because this is a blog. If you wanted to address Bobby and only Bobby then I guess this would not be the best venue to do so.

I was simply trying to point out that your posts often come across as accusatory and I don't know why.

Even when you say your are sorry you offended me, you end by saying you'll stop talking to me.

I personally, do not have a problem with you or anyone else following the protestant faith. I believe our church has the fuller truth, but I believe you are "saved" as much as I am.

I think the problem is that you don't believe we are Christians, while we do believe that you are.

"Where does it say in scripture that Mary was born without sin?"

Well again, Anon, where in scripture does it say that everything that one must believe is taught in scripture?

But, in addition to looking at the parallel that Luke paints in Luke 1 with 2 Sam 6 as I mentioned above, I would look to at John chapter 1 in light of Genesis chapter 1. We see that John is clearly making an allusion to Gen 1 from the very first words. "In the beginning." Now in John 19 we read about John the baptist and the priests and Levites. In verse 29, we see the phrase "the next day." John, as we mentioned earlier, is paralleling Genesis. So now wer're on day two, just like there was a day two in Genesis. Now in verse 25, again we see "the next day." Day three. Verse 43 "the next day." Day four. Now look at John 2: 1. It says "on the third day." This makes for the seventh day. What happened on the seventh day of creation? In Gen 2 :3, we see that God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. how does he make it holy? Through the sign of the first covenant in salvation history; the marriage of Adam and eve. So a wedding happens on the seventh day in Genesis, just like a wedding happens on the seventh day in John's gospel. The seventh day for John is the wedding feast at Cana. Who are the only two people mentioned? Jesus and Mary. Who are the only two people mentioned in Genesis creation account? Adam and Eve. Who is Jesus? The new Adam, as St Paul tells us. From all the inferences that John is pointing at, who is the Mary? The new Eve. And Eve was born without original sin. Yet the new is always far greater than the old. Mary, too, was thus born without original sin. Jesus refers to her as "women," and we see the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15 being fulfilled "I will put enmity between you and the women." Mary is the women. The church fathers knew her as the new Eve. If it's good enough for the fathers of the church, its good enough for me.

Bobby,

Don't leave. Please! lol

Also, you should really look into the Greek of Luke 1:28. Like I said above, if the word means that she has always been in a state of grace, then I guess that would do it.

Um, leave what?

Bobby,

Here. Right now. Don't leave me alone. You're so good at this...lol

Nah, I'm a bum. Actually, I will have to go pretty soon. Got the wife and baby at home.

It's okay...Anonymous seems to have left anyway.

She/he hates me and I don't know why. Cut me off on a post weeks ago. I can't figure her/him out.

Oh. How can you tell the Anonymous' apart? I tried to get this Anon to use a name, but he/she didn't seem to want to.

But Bobby, God's grace, the gift of sins being washed by Jesus' blood so we may have eternal life, did not happen until after Luke was written.

28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29: And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

I'll check out the Greek translation later tonight, but I think this just means that God was very pleased with Mary's obedience to Him, therefore being the one chosen to carry His Son.

Oh of course. And we freely admit that Mary's Immaculate conception was by a single divine grace of God. It was something special that he chose to do. He can do that, right? He's God. We could then ask how someone like Moses made it to heaven without ever having access to God's grace, but that goes into a whole other area, and as I pointed out to MK, I must get going, but I may be back tonight. God love you, Anon. I'll pray like you asked me to tonight.

Bobby, you're awesome! God loves you.

Anonymous,

I apologize for being harsh earlier. I was annoyed about the website I referred to, and I shouldn't have directed it to you. God bless you!

Bobby,
Also, I thought that we were talking about God's grace regarding the cleansing of sin, and the belief that Mary didn't have any sin. Sorry if I was confusing. I have a tendency to be that way sometimes!

Oh, Janet you're too sweet. You weren't harsh at all. Thank you, though! And if I were harsh to you, I apologize as well.

:)

Anon,

These are basically the only two things that I posted and one of them wasn't to you but in general...For the life of me, I cannot see what you found offensive. Show me so that I can avoid it in the future.

Honestly, for some reason that I cannot understand, you have taken a serious disliking to me. You cannot say the same of me, because I'm not even sure who I'm talking to half the time.
I really wish you would tell me what I have said or done, as I feel bad and don't even know why.

I have no hard feelings toward you and really wish we could clear this up...peace.

MK
Actually, (and I'm almost afraid to bring this up) but we don't believe that Mary was born with original sin. This is why we say she is "full" of grace...as in couldn't add any more grace. Full. To the top.

And while you may not think she was any great shakes, and wonder how God will react when he accuses us of praying "to" (how many times must we explain that it's "with") Mary, I gotta wonder what He'll say to you when He accuses you of "dissing" His mother.

Ok,

Just got here and I have to weigh in...

Story.

In Medjugorje, where Mary has been appearing to six (what were then children, but are now adults)for the last 20 some odd years, was very skeptical. So he went into the "apparition room" with the children one night. He brought the sacred host with him, figuring that if this vision was from satan, satan would be unable to do his voodoo with Jesus in the room.

At the moment that Mary appeared, the six children simultaneously fell to their knees, eyes fixed on a spot in front of them.

The priest also attempted to kneel, but found that he couldn't. He told the children what was happening and asked why he was unable to kneel.

They responded that Mary was kneeling. She said that as long as the priest was holding Jesus in his hand, he would be unable to kneel. Because Jesus never bows down to Mary, but rather Mary bows down to Him...

Next,

I hear a lot of this "Catholics don't pray to Jesus", "They don't have a personal relationship with Him", "They don't spend time with Him"...

Nonsense. We believe in the true presence. Which means every Sunday at Mass I not only get to be in the room with the "PHYSICAL" Jesus, present in the flesh, but I get to consume Him, take Him into my own body. How much closer can one get to Him than that? And every Sunday I spend an hour sitting with Him in the adoration chapel. Just me and Him, sharing an hour and our innermost thoughts. Talking and chatting it up, just like we're doing now.

Can't find that in a Unitarian or Non Denominational church.

Bobby,

I have responded in the archived thread. Once again, it is quite long.

I also won't be around this weekend to continue the discussion but should be back on Monday.

I saw, my friend. It'll probably take me all weekend to respond, so that's good. Have a good weekend.

Dan,
I was finally able to read your link. Thank you for the information.

Hail, is a greeting like "hello" or a salutation as your link suggested. I have found no other meaning that grace means without sin. All of the meanings that I have found regarding grace is that it is the infinite love, mercy, favor, and/or goodwill shown to humankind by God. Here are some translations regarding that verse that I looked up:

NIV
28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

KJV
28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

ESV
28And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

NKJV
28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

NASB
28And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

Although some translations don’t include “blessed is thou amongst women”, I feel that the common thread of the translations is that the angel was saying, “Hello, one who is favored by God”.

Back to your link that stated, “No, because kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle. This means that Mary was filled with grace in the past and this fullness of grace continues to the present. Therefore this fullness of grace is not new. It will not begin with the Incarnation and is not due to her maternity alone.”

Which I totally agree with. Not meaning that Mary was without sin, but that she was filled with God’s favour before she was ever born. I believe this because of the verse: Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you, before you were born I set you apart;

God has a purpose for each of us before we are ever born or formed in the womb. I don’t doubt for a second that Mary didn’t have an awesome purpose, and that she was blessed by God in a miraculous, outstanding way to me, but I don’t believe she was born without sin simply because of the Roman Catholic’s belief that grace means without sin.

I guess our definitions of grace are very different things. However, I have found numerous definitions and translations regarding grace that goes along with what I have stated above, but the only translation of grace being without sin came from the Roman Catholic church.

I guess you could call me a freelancer right now though I grew up in the Church. I guess the main idea is the fact that these churches say that good people go to hell, while some jerk is going to heaven just because he believed in Jesus. I just finished reading a book by a Buddhist nun who was a social worker and activist for her entire life. I think there is a lot that Christianity can learn from buddhism. Meditation for example; in the rosary we are told to meditate on the mysteries, but are we ever taught HOW to meditate? I think there is a lot to learn. Still, according to the Bible, this totally godly person is going to hell. I cannot accept that. I don't know what kind of God would do that. The God I believe in does not.

HI PIP.

"Still, according to the Bible, this totally godly person is going to hell."

No. That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. While Christ is the only way to heaven, what does that mean? Well, those who through no fault of their own have never heard of Christ and do not know of his teachings are not held culpable. Even an atheist living in 21st century America can be saved. God will not punish those who are invincibly ignorant. Those who are saved are still saved through the merits of Christ even though they didn't know it. Always keep in mind the idea of hell; God does not send people to hell. We send ourselves to hell by wanting to cut ourselves off from him. Anyone who would have accepted Jesus had they known he was God will not perish. God love you.

Anon,
The understanding of grace is a big point of contention. The Lutheran understanding of grace, which I think many Protestants agree with, is that it is God's favor. As Luther said 'we are dung covered with snow.' There is no internal change; we are still bad, but God looks at us and sees Jesus. The Catholic definition of grace is God's own life within us. We not only have favor with God, we actually are MADE good. So the Catholic understanding encompasses the Protestant understanding of grace. This gets into the whole issue of justification, where we have imputed vs. infused righteousness.

So a Catholic would say that because Mary had favor with God, she must have had God's own life within her because we do not believe God covers up our sins while we still remain sinful. So this passage needs to be exegete in light of our understandings of grace. The fact remains, though, that old testament typology infers that Mary is the new Eve, the new Ark of the covenant, and Queen Mother. God love you.

PIP,

GOD SAYS that without the shedding of blood, there cannot be forgiveness. Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. The system of blood scarifice was what God instituted with Adam and Eve, bought it up and perfected it with the Law and the Temple worship. It was all centered on animal sacrifices. When Israel would sin a particular sin, there was a particular sacrifice that they would have to bring. It ALWAYS, per God, had to be a blood sacrifice.

You cannot get new life without death, and death is signified by shed blood. God's dealing with the human race led up to His own supreme sacrifice, which had to be a shedding of blood. That's why Jesus died the way he did, and could not be hung. He had to shed blood. His shed blood, which was in accordance with His whole divine plan for the ages beginning with Adam and Eve's sin, just outside the garden, all the way up throught the Old Testament economy of Law and temple worship, all bring us up to the SUPREME sacrifice of all time, the death of Christ Himself. There was no more need for sacrifice once Christ died.

That's why it's so important to believe in what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross, and how he rose again on the third day. If someone doesn't believe in Him, there is no remission for their sins. No matter how good they were, what they have done in their lives, even for others - it doesn't matter. Their sins were not forgiven because they did not repent of them. Romans 3:23-24 tells us "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by His grace throught the redemption that is in Christ Jesus".

God cannot look upon sin. That's why He couldn't look upon Jesus when he was on the cross as He took on all of the sins of the world. God cannot look upon it, and sin cannot be allowed in heaven in the presence of God Himself.

Regarding those who have never heard the gospel, Romans 1:19b-20 tells us "for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they (the entire human race) are without excuse".

The bible tells us over and over again that in some way, somehow, everyone will know about Him.

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (how many men? EVERY MAN)

Titus 2:11-13
11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (again, how many men? ALL MEN)

12Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Romans 1:18-19
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (how many? ALL. Revealed from where? HEAVEN)

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (Where is this knowledge? IT IS MANIFEST IN THEM, and GOD HATH SHEWED IT UNTO THEM. How many did He shew this to? 18: ALL)

So, many people will say, "but God, that's not fair, because they never had a chance." God is NEVER unjust, or unfair. In His own higher way of thinking, God knows how He will take care of it. We can't comprehend it, nor understand it. But remember that God can never be unfair. He is totally just in all of His dealings.

PIP, these are His "rules", not ours. We didn't create the world, He did. We don't understand "why", He does. It's His plan and if we want to spend eternity with Him, we must obey Him.

A stupid analogy that I sometimes use is this: If you're going to eat at a restaurant where suit and tie is required, and you come in with blue jeans on, are you surprised when they refuse to let you in? You may not think it's fair because you're hungry, and have plenty of money to pay for the dinner. However, rules are rules. You can't go in unless you follow the restaurants rules.

Say you wanted to go golfing in a beautiful country club for members only. You golf great, have the money to pay for it, but they don't let you in because you're not a member there. Can you see where I'm going with this? God CANNOT let someone into heaven if they are still covered in their filthy sins. Jesus' blood will wash a person clean of thier sins if they simply, and I mean simply, believe in what He did on the cross and how He rose again on the third day. God really couldn't have made it more simpler for us. That's His grace in action! Atheists will go to hell because they deny God and Jesus. Period. Just as anyone else that does not believe what Jesus did. People will go to hell if their sins are not cleansed. Again, God's rules, not mine. He is MUCH more intelligent than any man that has ever walked the face of this earth. Only He knows the "big picture". We can't comprehend it because we are not Him. It's His plan. He made it simple for me and you, but it's up to us to do our part and just simply have faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by GRACE are ye saved THROUGH FAITH; and that NOT of yourselves: IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD:

9 NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.
(emphasis added)

So, you see, it's not be anything WE do, but it is by what HE has done that we may have eternal life.

No, that certainly makes sense, and I understand what you're saying and agree with it even. But I guess what I was saying is that my LDS friends really and truly believe that it was God (or the Holy Spirit) who caused that burning in their bosom. So what I mean is how do I distinguish the Holy Spirit's worth from my own feelings that maybe I'm forcing on a passage without realizing it?
For example, (to use something that I know you've been busily discussing lately) I'm sure you've prayed many times on Gen 1, and know that the Holy Spirit has spoken to you and told you that it is a literal account (or something like that... let me know if I'm totally misunderstanding something). But I'm sure there are other Christians who have also prayed to the Holy Spirit, asking him for guidance, and have come to a different conclusion when it comes to Gen 1. (I don't mean to pick on you, Bethany, I just want to use something that is probably relevant.) So how do you know which one of you really was spoken to by the Holy Spirit and which one, though meaning well, was mistaken? Or how can we tell our LDS friends that what they experienced was not of the Holy Spirit when they so fervently think that it is? This is tough, deep stuff. God love you.

I think that you don't just go by your feelings only, you have to compare scripture with scripture, and you have to look at the context and really make a distinction between verses which are 'literal' and 'figurative'. The bible says to "study to show thyself approved" "Rightly dividing the word of truth". You have to really study, in depth, and look at every word, analyzing what God's intentions were in the verses.
God made the language in the Old and New Testament discernible, as to whether it is literal or figurative. For example. In parables you will note that Jesus speaks of things in an abstract sense. The Bridegrooms, he doesn't talk about where the bridegrooms are, he doesn't talk about what type of oil is in the lamps, etc... he doesn't talk about where the rich man or lazarus lived, specifically. But if you'll notice, in the Genesis account, God makes it clear that the Garden of Eden is a literal place. He describes it's exact location,
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed" (Genesis 2:8). "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates" (Genesis 2:10-14).

Why would God go into such precise detail about where the Garden was located if it were not a literal place?

And as for "how can you ever know for sure you're right"....why do you think the Bible consistently tells us to stay away from false prophets..that people will turn from the truth to a lie? That the devil himself can appear as an angel of light? That we need to study scripture to stand strong against the delusions of our adversary the devil?
That we need to study the scriptures in order to be approved, and in order to rightly divide the Word?

God love you, Bobby.

Anon,

That is the main reason I have a problem with Christianity. To me its totally backwards that you can be a total ahole and still get in heaven while this woman who dedicated her life to saving others will go to hell. What kind of God would do that?

Bethany,
That is probably where the people lived. That's why they can describe it.

Anon,

"So, you see, it's not be anything WE do, but it is by what HE has done that we may have eternal life."
No, if WE don't "accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior" WE go to hell. That is something that WE do.

also, if you'll notice...(this is in response to PIP , per our conversation earlier about the sun).

In Genesis, after the light and darkness were already created and separated, there was an evening, and a morning.

After the sun and moon and stars were created, here is what the Bible says:

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So this means, that after God said that the sun and moon would be for signs and seasons, to rule the day and night, there was again, an evening and a morning which made the fourth day.

The same day was spoken of before and after the sun was created. The evening and the morning. How much more specific could God be than to use evening and the morning for a literal time table for how long the day was?

Bethany,
That is probably where the people lived. That's why they can describe it.

But PIP, the Bible was inspired by God, not people.
I am not really sure what your point is here.

PIP,
Did you read my post? It's not about BEING good, or BEING an a-hole. That's all "works".

It's about redemption of sin paid for by Jesus's blood. It's all about sin, PIP, not about works.

That is the main reason I have a problem with Christianity. To me its totally backwards that you can be a total ahole and still get in heaven while this woman who dedicated her life to saving others will go to hell. What kind of God would do that?

Our works themselves are as filthy rags, PIP. We can't shape God into the way we desire him to be. The clay cannot shape the potter.

Without the atonement of the blood, our works are nothing.

Only God knows the heart.

We look at people who do good deeds and see someone who was great and who is dedicated to God.
God looks at people who do good things and weighs their hearts. This is why pharisees who lived a life doing pious things "for God", were called out by Jesus, because he knew their inward intentions. Other people could not see these, because they did not know their hearts.
Others may have thought the pharisees were great people.

Sorry, that last post was a little bit scattered.... I hope you still got the jist of the post.

PIP,
"No, if WE don't "accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior" WE go to hell. That is something that WE do."

You are correct. That is the one "choice" we get to make. The "works" that I was talking about was in reference to the Buddhist lady. Accepting Christ as Savior is not works, it is a choice we make to either accept him or not. By the choice we make to accept Him, we are saved, not by what we do in this life that is pleasing to men. We need to please God. Accepting Christ is pleasing to God. It is the one and only key to our salvation.

Anon, this is one reason the literal creation account is so important. Without a literal adam and eve, there is no curse, there is no original sin.
Then the whole Bible falls apart, because that is what the whole gospel is about.

By one man sin entered into the world.
By one man, the free gift to redeem mankind from the curse entered into the world.

Bethany,
Thank you, and I agree. That's the whole theme of the bible from the time man was created. From Genesis to Revelation, the theme is to try to bring about the salvation of a fallen human race. God's main concern is that the human race can find salvation, that's why He has done so much.

PIP,
You know I was just thinking about you and many of your other posts throughout the months. I think, and I could be wrong, that your problem with Christianity comes from your absolute love of ALL people. You are so into human rights, and care so very deeply about every human on this earth. You don't want to see anything bad happen to anyone, so when God tells us that people will be sent to such a horrible place for not believing in Him, it tears you up inside. It is such a tremendous quality that you have. You are a sweetheart!

You have to understand, though, that there is nothing you can do about someone else's faith in God. You can only do something about your own. Sure, you can tell them all you know about God, but you can't MAKE them choose God.

You look at such a big picture, the entire fairness of the human race at all times. Again, tremendous quality you have! For starters, though, I would just look at what God has done for you. Just think about PIP at this time, and what Jesus has done for PIP. I believe that if you come to know him as your personal Savior, many of the other questions you have will fall perfectly into place for you.

God does love you PIP, and like you, He loves the entire human race and wants only good things for all. It's not a problem with Christianity, or God being unfair. The problem is there are so many that just refuse to believe in Him. How can he possibly give the tremendous gift of eternal life to those who refuse Him?

You know I was just thinking about you and many of your other posts throughout the months. I think, and I could be wrong, that your problem with Christianity comes from your absolute love of ALL people. You are so into human rights, and care so very deeply about every human on this earth. You don't want to see anything bad happen to anyone, so when God tells us that people will be sent to such a horrible place for not believing in Him, it tears you up inside. It is such a tremendous quality that you have. You are a sweetheart!

I second that!! Very well spoken, Anon.

"But PIP, the Bible was inspired by God, not people.
I am not really sure what your point is here."
If it is inspired by God but written by people, why wouldn't the people describe their surroundings? Anyway, we have agreed to disagree on the biblical aspect of creationism because we interpret the Bible differently.

Anon, I did read your post but I disagree.
Thank you for your compliments, I really appreciate it :)
However I still do not understand why God would punish people eternally for being a good person on earth and godly without the understanding of Christ. Would a loving God do that? Maybe purgatory can count for that--is that the idea, Bobby?

If it is inspired by God but written by people, why wouldn't the people describe their surroundings? Anyway, we have agreed to disagree on the biblical aspect of creationism because we interpret the Bible differently.

PIP, Moses who wrote Genesis, was describing Adam and Eve's surroundings, not his own surroundings. The creation story is one that happened before Moses was born. The only way that Moses could have described in detail exactly where Adam and Eve lived would be through the inspiration of God.

Also, I can know about a certain location, and I can describe to you that location. However, if I told you that someone used to live in such and such a location, that would be different than just describing it because I was familiar with it.

Why would God lie about where Adam and Eve lived? It says clearly that God put Adam there. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed"

However I still do not understand why God would punish people eternally for being a good person on earth and godly without the understanding of Christ.

If someone is truly blind, it is possible they are not accountable for their sins (such as a little child who has no understanding)...as Jesus said in John 9:41:

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

"Why would God lie about where Adam and Eve lived? It says clearly that God put Adam there. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed""
Again you completely misunderstand my perspective. I have no doubt that Adam and his descendants lived around that area and it can be described very well because Moses knew plenty about it.

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
Couldn't you say that most people from other faiths and walks of life are like that.

"Also, I can know about a certain location, and I can describe to you that location. However, if I told you that someone used to live in such and such a location, that would be different than just describing it because I was familiar with it."
It would be hard to describe New York without experiencing it yourself. The geography can be described well though by other people directly telling me. Moses might know the geography very well because if he didn't live directly on the land plenty of travelers would know it well. I believe that Bible was guided by the holy spirit but written by man so I look at it from that perspective. We have different ways of looking at it and that's fine Bethany, I don't mind.

You really don't want to discuss this any further? I will respect your request, but it seemed that in the other thread you did not want to agree to disagree, and you wanted to continue the discussion. This is why I am still discussing with you today, now that I do not have to write any articles and I do have some free time. But, if you really do want to stop discussing it, I will.

Couldn't you say that most people from other faiths and walks of life are like that.

Perhaps some, but many know of Christ and yet reject Him.

Bethany,

I would love to discuss how you view it scientifically! But I think at least in terms of biblical interpretation we will just have to chalk it up to different perspectives. If you want to look at it scientifically and ask me questions on how I interpret the bible in terms of that I'm cool with it. I think the fact that you think my perspective regards God as a liar leads me to believe that that part of our conversation doesn't have much further to go. Do you agree, or do you want to discuss it further? If you want to, I'm game.

PIP, I think that before we get into scientific discussion about it, since you are a fellow believer, you must understand my premise based on the scripture. That must be the basis of the discussion, if we would ever be able to get anywhere.

So I guess we will just have agree to disagree unless you would like to continue on that aspect of it....

hope you're having a good day. I'm off to make flour tortillas and refried beans now. Talk to you more soon!

PIP,
Regarding purgatory, the mere concept just fires me up! (no pun intended)

"The concept is mind-boggling. We know from Scripture that nothing impure can enter into the presence of God. We know from Scripture that God hates sin and that the punishment for unremitted sin is eternity separated from God. According to Scripture, there is but one means of atoning for sin – the shedding of blood. But whose blood? The blood of animals does not save, nor does the blood of men. Only the spilled blood of Christ is adequate to atone for the sins of mankind.

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that Christ's substitutionary sacrifice only served to atone for a part of the just punishment due every man for his sin. We are indeed made aware that there are sometimes temporal consequences for our sins (Hebrews 12), but there is no mention of the purifying flames of Purgatory. This is but another Catholic invention – one concocted by the Popes to provide a market for the selling of indulgences during the Middle Ages.

Should God choose to chastise his unruly children, it will be in this lifetime, for at death we go to our eternal home (Ecc. 12:5). Christians cannot accept the concept of Purgatory, for it is nothing more than an advertising gimmick to promote the sale of indulgences. The continuing offering of indulgences, while perhaps no longer a major source of RCC income, still serves the purpose of creating and maintaining dependency on the Roman cult to ease the consequences of sin.

Believers in the Christ of Scripture have no fear of Purgatory nor need for silly indulgences.

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.--1 Thessalonians 5:9-10"

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc10-purgatory.htm

The ridiculous belief in purgatory is just one more means of saying that the blood of Jesus Christ, which paid for ALL sin, was just not good enough. Again, it is the mystical teachings of the Catholic church that will tell you what sins Jesus actually paid for, and which one's he did not.

Ridiculous and sad.

Again, Anon, your understanding of the doctrine of purgatory is lacking. Christ paid the price for our sins; he merited forgiveness from God. But that does not mean that there is not still punishment due to sins. Look at 2 Sam 12:13-14.

13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Here we see that God forgave David's sin. However, punishment for that sin was still due. If I spill a pitcher of orange juice in my mother's house, my mom will forgive me. But there is still orange juice on the floor that needs to be cleaned up. Next, we should look at 1 Cor 3:11-15. St. Paul is talking about the Day, the day of judgement. Notice especially verse 15
13
the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
14
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15
But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.

The person is to be saved only through fire? How is someone saved through fire? Notice, we're talking about THE DAY. The person is already dead, and there is no chance that St Paul is talking about something that is happening on earth. So what is he talking about. It's not hell, because once you're in hell, you're in hell. It's not heaven because we suffer no loss in heaven. St. Paul is describing a third state; a state of purification. This is what we call purgatory.

Finally, the verse that you quoted above, Rev 21:7, seals the deal. Nothing unclean may enter heaven. When I die, do I have absolutely no attachment to sin? Am I free of all longings towards evil? I highly doubt it. Purgatory cleanses me of those attachments. In no way does it take away from the once for all sacrifice of Christ on calvary.

It is also worth pointing out that purgatory is clearly taught in 2 Maccabees 12 :44-46

44
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Of course, Luther removed this book as well as 6 others from the bible on his own authority. Purgatory was also taught by the early church http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp .

Also, this anti-catholic website that you quote is woefully mistaken and not in accordance with reality when it comes to their theory that purgatory only exists for the selling of indulgences. While there were some abuses around the reformation time, the Church has never sold indulgences, nor could they possibly make any money from doing so. The website also way off base in trying to describe purgatory. They should have consulted the catechism if they wanted accuracy.

You say that sex should only be for married
couples.If everybody did this it would avoid
a lot of difficulties,but this is a totally
unrealistic goal.You talk about the supposed
lack of chastity today,but this is nothing
new.Sexual promiscuity has been around since
the beginning.It's not a good idea,but you
can't stop human nature.I don't mean to be
disrespectful to Catholics or Catholicism,
but the Vatican's policies on sex and the
family are terribly misguided.Its opposition
to contraception is totally unrealistic.
If people around the world in poor countries
access to safe contraceptives,many of the
abortions that take place there routinely could
avoided.And the Bush regime's policies in
this area are just as bad.We need a Democratic
President.

Bobby,

That's where the idea of purgatory comes from?

2 Sam 12:13-14
These verses explain that death was required by the Law for both murder and aldultery, even for a king. However, because of David's deep repentance without making excuse and, more significantly, the promise of 5:12 (So David knew that the Lord had established him as king over Israel, and that He had exalted His kingdom for the sake of His people Israel), God's grace is given, though his family will experience the tragic effects of his sin.

1 Cor 3:11-15

13-15 describes the (13)quality of each builder's work will be tested on the Day of the Lord's return. Every leader will stand accountable before the Lord Christ - Builder of His church.
(14) The REWARD is not salvation, which Scripture teaches is a free gift, but a reward for faithful service.
and, (15), The LOSS is the reward this builder might have received, not his salvation. AS THROUGH FIRE: This person will have a narrow escape,like someone fleeing from a burning building, who loses all his possesssions and saves only his life.

When did I quote Revelation 21:7?

How do you guys really get the idea of purgatory from those verses?

You're right, though. I will never understand the concept of purgatory, because it is not biblically supported. I do not read the
Maccabees. Scripture has a way with referencing itself throughout the bible. The Maccabbees are not supported anywhere else in scripture, and that's why they are not there. Thank God for Luther.

Purgatory was taught by the early Church? The earliest church was the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't recall a single verse that Jesus spoke of purgatory.

Bobby, "Nothing unclean may enter heaven. When I die, do I have absolutely no attachment to sin? Am I free of all longings towards evil? I highly doubt it. Purgatory cleanses me of those attachments. In no way does it take away from the once for all sacrifice of Christ on calvary"

You said it in your last sentence. "once for all sacrifice of Christ on calvary". What does once for all mean to you? Sorry, Bobby, but if you don't believe Jesus Christ's own words that he came to pay for ALL SIN, I really don't know what to tell you. Will you still do things not in accordance with God's will? God will discipline you for that by showing you how to do His will through the Holy Spirit. Salvation and the purification from sin through the grace of God and Jesus' blood is a one-time thing, as is faith. You mean to tell me that when you sin, you lose faith, then you regain it, then you lose it, then you regain it again? It is not something you have to do over and over again. And most certainly not something that requires the fable of purgatory.

Again, Anon, your understanding of the doctrine of purgatory is lacking. Christ paid the price for our sins; he merited forgiveness from God. But that does not mean that there is not still punishment due to sins. Look at 2 Sam 12:13-14.
13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
Here we see that God forgave David's sin. However, punishment for that sin was still due. If I spill a pitcher of orange juice in my mother's house, my mom will forgive me. But there is still orange juice on the floor that needs to be cleaned up. Next, we should look at 1 Cor 3:11-15. St. Paul is talking about the Day, the day of judgement. Notice especially verse 15

Bobby, I agree with you that although, for those who have accepted Christ, our sins are forgiven, we still must face the consequences of sin...but I only agree to the extent that we face the consequences here on earth. just as David faced the consequences of his sin right there on earth. No sentence to purgatory was ever given him. Once we die, that is it...to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Know what I mean?

regarding 1 Cor. 3:15...I just wanted to paste a commentary about it that explains (better than I can explain myself) what the context surrounding that passage means.
I realize you probably will disagree but I wanted to let you see anyway, just so you'd understand how we protestants see this scripture:

"As with any verse in the Bible, to fully understand it, we must look at it in its biblical context. Following is 1 Cor. 3:10-15:

According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

The context speaks of Paul having planted the Corinthian church and that another person was building upon that work: Verse 6 says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." Paul goes on to say that unless a person builds upon the foundation of Jesus, his work will be burned up the in the day of judgment (v. 13). See also, 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:2).

Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar with the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted, the dross. So too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.

1 Cor. 3:15 does not teach purgatory as a place we go to in order to have some of our sins cleansed from us. It teaches that even though the person is justified by faith and cannot face damnation, his works will, however, be judged on "that day." Those works which are good will survive the fires of judgment the way gold, silver, and precious stones can survive fire. But false works will be consumed the way fire consumes wood, hay, and straw. What is left has no bearing on whether or not we are saved. It has to do with rewards in heaven.

Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 4:5, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God."

Note also, 1 Pet. 1:6-7, "In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

2 Pet. 3:10-13, "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells."

Purgatory is a dangerous doctrine that makes the Cross of Christ insufficient by requiring the person to undergo suffering in order to be made worthy of being with God. This is a false teaching and is to be avoided. We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not by faith and works (Rom. 3:28). "
http://www.carm.org/catholic/1_Cor_3-15.htm

Oops, that was longer than I thought. sorry about that.

"That's where the idea of purgatory comes from?"

No, purgatory from the deposit of faith handed down through the apostles and preserved in Christ's Church here on earth. These are just biblical references to show that the doctrine of purgatory does not contradict scripture.

"When did I quote Revelation 21:7?"

Sorry, you didn't. The webpage you pasted made reference to it when it said "We know from Scripture that nothing impure can enter into the presence of God."

"Scripture has a way with referencing itself throughout the bible."

I don't know what this means. And how do you know what scripture is? If it references itself, isn't that circular?

"Purgatory was taught by the early Church? The earliest church was the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't recall a single verse that Jesus spoke of purgatory."

Yes, I had a page of quotes. Look at John 21:25

25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Not everything Jesus did or taught is written directly in the bible. And again, where does it say in the bible that everything you have to believe is written in the bible? Where does the bible teach that "the main things are th plain things and the plain things are the main things"?

"You said it in your last sentence. "once for all sacrifice of Christ on calvary". What does once for all mean to you? Sorry, Bobby, but if you don't believe Jesus Christ's own words that he came to pay for ALL SIN, I really don't know what to tell you."

Again, you don't understand the concept of purgatory. It has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins. That's what Jesus' sacrifice of calvary took care of. But punishment due to sins. That's the distinction.

Bethany,

"but I only agree to the extent that we face the consequences here on earth. just as David faced the consequences of his sin right there on earth. No sentence to purgatory was ever given him. Once we die, that is it...to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Know what I mean? "

Well, the 2 Sam verse is to illustrate the concept that punishment due to sins is not unbiblical. Sure, David is being punished on earth, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that the punishment is restricted just to earth. What if by the time I die I have not received the due punishment for sins? I am unpure. That's what purgatory does. It cleanses of those sins for which we were not punished here on earth. I gotta go now, I wish i could continue writing and continue this convo, but, alas. God love ya'll.

"AS THROUGH FIRE: This person will have a narrow escape,like someone fleeing from a burning building, who loses all his possesssions and saves only his life."
I dunno that interpretation seems kind of like a stretch.

I'm just going to watch this conversation unfold because I'm rather ignorant on the subject :)

Bobby, "Again, you don't understand the concept of purgatory. It has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins."

"That's what purgatory does. It cleanses of those sins for which we were not punished here on earth. "

So what, Bobby, it doesn't forgive the sin, but it cleanses the sin so you can be forgiven by this punishment that you didn't receive on earth?

PLEASE READ THIS! Pay special attention to verse 12, 14 and the words of God Himself in verses 16-19.

Hebrews 10:8-19
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Pay really close attention to the words bolded below:

11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ,/i>

So no one can lay a foundation for salvation, other than Christ. This is consistent with everything that the Bible teaches about Christ.

12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man's work will become evident;

This is what I see in this passage....it doesn't say, if any man "builds a foundation" of Gold, silver, etc.. it's if any many "builds upon the foundation, with gold, silver, etc. Which means the foundation must be there first, and it says in that same passage that there can be no other foundation except Christ.
If you build on top of your foundation, with gold, silver, precious stone, etc, you are doing this while you are saved. You have the foundation of Christ. The works are the gold, silver, precious stone, wood, hay, straw. These do not alter the foundation in any way, because the foundation of Christ cannot be moved.
Those works are separate from the foundation. We receive rewards for our works, not earn our salvation itself.

for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

See above.

14If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.

If the work remains, notice he does not receive salvation. He receives a reward. When we do good works for Christ, we are laying up treasures for ourselves in Heaven.

15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

Whether your works are pure or not, if you have the foundation, which is Christ, you will still be saved, yet you will miss out on all those rewards you could have had by simply doing good works to show your faith in your lifetime.

Bobby,
In addition to my post above (3:19 pm), here are some more verses to PLEASE READ:
Please pay special attention to verses 10, 11 & 15.

Romans 8:9-10
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

We have Christ in us and are blameless in the sight of God, as is Christ. There is no need for purgatory. If this were true, and Christ lives in us, are you saying that we send Christ to purgatory? God has immediately adopted us into righteousness and we are immediately purfied FOR GOOD when we become believers in Christ.

Catholics believe that sinful man, even a forgiven believer, is still so imperfect at the time of his death that we could not possibly go directly before God. Thus, they claim that we need somewhere to spend some time and be purified, which is where Purgatory comes in. This sort of reasoning is religious philosophy, the sort of philosophy that Scripture warns us against, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

I'm a bum.

Bobby, I have to laugh here - this is at least the second time you've said that, and there just ain't no way..... Amid all that earnestness there is a cool dry sense of humor.

Ota Benga really did not look like a monkey. It was a sad tale of imperialism, etc.

I have seen some fairly simian-appearing people, though.

All mainline Protestant denominations allow abortion.
Until that interpretation/analysis of the word of God, the bible, is removed from the faith of Protestants, nothing will change in this nation.
Protestants released the abortion genie from its bottle, by using the bible to change Jesus, into a God that allows the killing of his creation in the womb of women.
Today, for mainline Christians, it is easy to accept that Mary could have a abortion, and should have a abortion, since it is nothing more then a matter of conscience, formed from interpeting the bible for the rightous justification.
If the women who incarnated Jesus may have a abortion by bible interpetation, why not the millions of "nobody", Protestant Christian women?
And so they do, and will continue until Protestants remove that "bible interpetation" from their good news book.
And even if they do re-interpret their bible, and stop worshiping the God they created through their bible interpretation that allows abortion, Jesus has been changed forever, in the history of Christ worship.
Now that is a sin which might not be able to be forgiven, since multi-millions have found, in the name Jesus, a allowance for abortion.

Anon,
I realize that for whatever reason you have decided to stop speaking to me, but I really want to point out some of the things that you say, that are rather disrespectful...

This is what I meant by making our faith seem sinister. Again, I believe that you are a Christian, 100%. But I can't help but feel that you are implying that Catholics are somehow NOT Christian. I really wish you'd clear that up...

Purgatory nor need for silly indulgences.\

The ridiculous belief in purgatory
leave out the word ridiculous and we are having a discussion. Put in the word ridiculous and you are belittling my faith...see?

Something particularly disgusting to me:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0041_01.asp

PIP,

well that was eye opening...lol.

Hmmmm...

PIP, I understand how that can seem disgusting to you, but you have to understand that these references do come straight from the Bible.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The reason being, God and only God knows the heart.

That being said, I've never really been a fan of chick tracts.

but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Why do we drop the "doeth" in this quote?

So Anon,

I've been thinking about what you have said, and I have a question or two. What do protestants do when so many different interpretations are come to...? How do I know that what you are saying to me is the truth? It's really quite confusing to me. I mean, how do I know Jill's church is right and yours is wrong or visa versa? Where do I go to get more answers?

Mk, the "doeth the will of my father" refers to salvation. If we do the will of the Father, we are accepting His Son's sacrifice on the cross. That is the Will of the Father that we do. I meant to say something about that before...sorry about that.

But how do you know that that is the "will" that is being spoken of...He tells us to feed his hungry (a "do") clothe His poor (another "do"), feed His sheep, love one another...where does it say that Faith is enough. Faith is all.

This will never make sense to me...Is it enough that your kids love you? Or do you want them to do well in school, be obedient, clean their rooms? Your love might be unconditional, but your "TV time" isn't....

part of the problem is that we believe there are two parts to every sin...you only believe there is one. We believe you must be forgiven but ALSO that you must "repair" the damage that you have done. His death ensured the forgiveness, but the repair or clean up is or job...

But how do you know that that is the "will" that is being spoken of...He tells us to feed his hungry (a "do") clothe His poor (another "do"), feed His sheep, love one another...where does it say that Faith is enough. Faith is all.

Those are things that we should lay "upon" our foundation. We should have works to show our faith, as it says clearly in the book of James. If we don't have those works to show for our faith, we could still be saved, but "as by fire".

Let me see if I can be a little more clear, because I don't think above is clear enough.

The Bible states time and time again, over and over ad nauseum, that we cannot earn our salvation, at all. There is NOTHING we can do to earn our own salvation.

All we as sheep have gone astray, we have gone everyone to his own way. And the Lord hath laid on HIM the iniquity of us all.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

"I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee."
(Isaiah 57:12 KJV)

Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Read that last verse above. It, among dozens and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other passages, confirm what you have asked. You asked "where does it say that faith is enough?" Well, it says it right there. It is salvation through "faith", and not of works, and why is it not of works? So that no one can boast, or say, "I got into heaven because I did this, or this, or this". Only Jesus should be glorified for why we get to go to Heaven. We cannot possibly do anything righteous on our own. After we are saved, the good works we do are through Christ and NOT of ourselves.

Yes, we are commanded to do good works after salvation. But these works do NOT help us to get into heaven. They do not help at all. But does this mean that we should sin, and do whatever we want after being saved, because it's all covered anyway? Romans 6:1 says:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

Marykay, let me ask you. If someone gives you a gift, do you have to pay for it? If you do pay for it, is it a gift?
But you could do nice things for the person who gave you the gift, as a gesture of "thanks" for the gift. Although this may be an imperfect analogy, I want you to understand what I'm saying here.
Time and time again, God refers to salvation as a "gift", a "free gift". Why would God offer us a "free gift" of Heaven, but then require that we pay for this gift? If He did require that we pay for the gift, it would no longer be a gift, but something that we purchased.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
******
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24)

"What must I do to perform the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent. (John 6:28-29)

Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. (John 6:47)

I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved. (John 10:9)

I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies (John 11:25)

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:1--3)

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given amoung mortals by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)

Jesus Christ--he is Lord of all. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day....everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. (Acts 10:36,39,40,43)

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." (Acts 16:30-31)

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

God demonstrated His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

..the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:13)

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6)

Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. (Isaiah 1:18)

It is by faith you have been saved, through faith ---- and this not from yourselves --- it is a gift of God --- not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesian 2:8-9)

God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful. (1 Corinthians 1:9)

This will never make sense to me...Is it enough that your kids love you? Or do you want them to do well in school, be obedient, clean their rooms? Your love might be unconditional, but your "TV time" isn't....

God never says that all people are His children (except in the sense that we are all in God's image and likeness). We are not His children, according to the Bible, until we accept His gift of atonement on the cross. Once we are saved, then we are His children ,and then we are chastised, just as a child is chastised by his father, but until then, the only punishment for our sin is death.

God's love is unconditional, but He cannot allow sin in His presence. The ONLY way for us, as humans, to be allowed in his sight, is for us to be covered, and our sins cleansed completely, by the sacrifice that Jesus completed on the cross.

For us to try to work and earn our way to Heaven is to insult Jesus and His finished work on the cross...to say that Jesus work was not good enough. That we have to help Him earn us a place in Heaven. God never says that we earn salvation. We can build upon our foundation to bring forth fruit for Him, but we can never ever earn our own salvation. It's impossible.
Jesus did everything necessary for that.

Love you, MK :)

oh and I have to clarify. The devil believes in Christ, but is not saved. I know this probably seems contradictory to you, but let me explain.

To believe on Jesus means that you must trust in Him, rely on Him for your salvation.

Faith without works is dead. Which means if you don't have works to show for your salvation, you probably did not have faith in the first place.

If you are not relying on Jesus for your salvation, you will most likely not have any works to show for it. It just makes sense.

When we become saved, we literally "become a new creature. All old things are passed away. All things are become new" according to the Bible. This is nothing to do with "us", but with God's Spirit entering us and changing us after we have become dead to ourselves.

We become dead to our old sins, and therefore all of our new actions will be Christlike, because we have the spirit of Christ.

I don't think it's really possible to have Christ 's spirit, or to have become dead to yourself and relied on Christ, unless you have works to show for it. That's what the book of James is there to explain to us, I believe.

However, our flesh will still cause us to sin, as long as we are in our mortal bodies.

As Paul says:
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

About the children of God discussion:

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Before being saved, we are all children of disobedience. We were children, basically of the devil, walking according to Satan's rules and his laws.

Roman's 9:8b says:
"They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:"

James 4:4 says:
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Also, Jesus spoke against people who were the enemies of God. Why would He do this if they were also God's children?

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

However, God's plan of salvation allows for us to be "adopted" into His family.

Wow, sorry all of that is so long.

Mk, “I've been thinking about what you have said, and I have a question or two. What do protestants do when so many different interpretations are come to...? How do I know that what you are saying to me is the truth? It's really quite confusing to me. I mean, how do I know Jill's church is right and yours is wrong or visa versa? Where do I go to get more answers?”

Ok, I’ll try to answer this for you in the best way I know how. You may not agree, but that’s ok. Here goes:

I don’t think that any two churches, within the same religion being either Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, etc., will have the same exact interpretations of God’s word. I can walk into one church and here a pastor’s interpretation of a verse, then walk into another church and hear something different. Every “interpretation” of God’s word comes from man. God's word will always speak for itself.

That being said, the doctrines and traditions within a religious group may be consistent, but the interpretations can be very different when it comes to the pastor, or what have you, teaching his/her congregation. That’s why I feel that it’s so important to get teachings from a bible-based church. The scripture speaks for itself. I know you’re not a big fan of “sola scriptura”, but if you look at Bethany’s post from February 10, 2008 9:01 AM, you can clearly see that all of the scriptures “back themselves up”. All of these books were written in much different time periods, but stayed consistent with the same theme. Anything you want to be taught from God is in this Great Book.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Psalm 118:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Also, the Holy Spirit is the GREATEST teacher we can ever have. If you ask God to show you what is meant by a certain verse, He will show you. He promised:

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

ALSO IN:

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

I hope that answered your question.

PIP, 2:58 AM,

Is that serious or satire? It makes a lot of assumptions about the Reverend and his wife that we have no way of knowing are true or not, just to make them look foolish.

Bethany,

I can only speak for myself, but I find all of that sooooo confusing.
Especially Paul talking about the law. Catholicism seems so much easier.

I'm sorry, Janet, that's my fault....I should have posted it from the New International version, or something like that. The King James is very difficult to understand sometimes since it uses old English, and sometimes the newer translations are easier to follow. i'm just so used to using KJV myself that I kind of forget that sometimes. Can you tell me if this one makes it easier to understand? http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Romans%207&niv=yes

Janet, "Is that serious or satire? It makes a lot of assumptions about the Reverend and his wife that we have no way of knowing are true or not, just to make them look foolish. "

Janet, it was serious, but the Reverend and his wife was a hypothetical situation. Please see Bethany's post regarding this: February 10, 2008 7:10 AM.

The seriousness of it was that it is not by works that we go to heaven, it is by believing what Jesus did on the cross and how he rose again the third day that gets us there. I think the cartoon was an assumption that the Reverend and his wife never accepted what Christ did for us on the cross, and they thought that just by the "good works" they get to heaven.

The released prisoner accepted Jesus and his sins were cleansed and he was made righteouss in the sight of God. It didn't matter what he did, because God forgave him of his sins (no matter how big they may seem to us). If the Reverend and his wife did not have their sins cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, no matter what they could possibly do (works), they still could not enter heaven without being cleansed of their sins.

It's sad for the people who belive in works for salvation, but true that they will not go to heaven by them.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Bethany,
have you ever used this one?
www.biblegateway.com

I am so grateful that the scripures have been put on websites! It sure does make looking up a verse or finding one that you're looking for SOOOO much easier!

Yes, I have used Biblegateway.com before...but the one I use most frequently is http://www.blueletterbible.com. I love doing searches with those...you're right, it really does make it easier!

I'll have to check out the link to the site you use. You have a true gift at explaining God's word!

Bethany and Anon,

I think we have a multitude of problems here...the biggest being that we have different definitions of certain words and when I use them one way you read them another and visa versa.

I have a different definition of grace, of baptism, of salvation, of sin, of repentance and of works.

You believe that faith alone will get you into heaven, and I believe that there are cases where simply believing is enough (like on one's death bed) and you are under the impression that we believe that we "work" our way into heaven. We do not. We believe that Christ died and opened the door. No more animal sacrifices. A new covenant. We too believe we become new beings when we enter Gods' family. But we believe that you cannot separate works from faith. They go hand in hand and one without the other is an imperfect expression of faith...so no matter how many good works I do, if I do them in my name and not His, I will not be "saved".

A perfect example of this is Mother Teresa and Princess Di. They both did humanitarian works but one did them in the name of man, and one did them in the name of God. Someone commented to Mother Teresa (As she was picking worms of a dying person) that they wouldn't do what she was doing for a million dollars. She replied "Neither would I"...she was doing it for love of God. In Jesus' name.

As for baptusm, you believe that your sins are covered up by Jesus' blood and we believe that the stain of Original Sin is removed. You lump all sins together and we believed Jesus died to remove the original sin. Once that was removed, we were born again...however, we are still capable of sin and must repair any damage that is caused by this sin.

Jesus' always washed his feet when entering someones house. He still entered, but he first, cleaned his feet. So too, we "clean our feet" and remove any residual "dirt" from our souls due to sin post baptism, through purgatory.

Bethany,

While your post gives great arguments for needing faith, I don't see anywhere that it says faith ALONE...but I do see where it says faith with works (as in James).

The Core of the Agreement

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification essentially says that Lutherans and Catholics explain justification in different ways but share the same basic understanding. The central passage reads, “Together we confess: by grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.” The declaration acknowledges that good works are a genuine response to God’s grace—not the cause of it. The declaration also rescinds the formal condemnations of both the Catholic and Lutheran Churches against one another.

Date and location of the joint signing were carefully orchestrated. The ceremony took place in Augsburg, Germany, on October 31, 1999, Reformation Sunday—the anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses of protest to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Augsburg was chosen because it was there that Luther was confronted by Cardinal Cajetan in 1518, and there on June 25, 1530, reformers presented the Lutheran position in the presence of Emperor Charles V to Roman Catholic authorities in a futile attempt to mend the growing rift. This Augsburg Confession is considered the foundational document of Lutheranism.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jun2000/feature2.asp#F2

Janet that was serious.

It makes me sick that they say the couple didn't "trust in Jesus" because it makes sense that when they do good in God's name and live like Jesus lived they have trusted him for their salvation. It doesn't make any sense that because they are good people they are not Christians.
Furthermore it only confirms my problem that an ahole will get to heaven and someone who actually lives their faith will go to hell based on Chick's version of the Bible. But according to him you should be like that guy, not do anything, just lecture other people on why you are saved and they are not, rather than someone who has devoted their life to helping other people in God's name. It makes me sick, it really does. Jack Chick is really horrible, Janet. He believes that Catholics follow the devil. If you are really curious I can show you some more gross ones.

Besides doesn't almost every protestant church claim to be all Bible. Isn't that the philosophy of protestantism? Nothing but scripture (and typically a literal interpretation of it)?

pip,

you have to be careful tho, not to disrespect their faith traditions. yes, for the most part they believe in sola scriptura. This came about at the reformation.

Oddly enough, (And this is my understanding) Luther continued to believe in the true presence (the followers of Luther didn't), to honor Mary as the Virgin mother of God, (the followers of Luther don't), he removed the book of James from scripture because it didn't back up the saved by grace alone idea, and then his followers dumped the true presence, dumped devotion to Mary and put the book of James back. I know I'm simplyfying here, but these are some of the main differences between the two traditions. Of course there are more, but these are pretty big ones.

Always remember tho, that from a Catholics point of view (can't speak for the protestant view) protestants are valid Christians.

Luther was a Catholic Priest by the way...

He had some good points, (about selling indulgences and such) but it's a shame that he didn't work within the church, instead breaking her...

That tract also brings me back to the fact that many christians believe that in order to be saved you have to recruit people.
Wait a minute. Would that be a "good work"?

Anon,

I have no doubt that everyone is a Christian. That is why I only referred to protestantism in the last paragraph in reference to the post about finding a "bible believing church."

PIP,
Okay, please tell me then how you go to heaven, if it isn't by believing in Jesus and it's by works alone. Remember, your answer has to cover all angles. How many good things does one have to do to get to heaven, which types of things does one have to do to get to heaven, which things count as a ticket to heaven, and which things don't. (what's good to some may not be good for others: eugenics, for instance) at what point in one's life do these good things have to be done to get into heaven, at what age should the good things that get you into heaven be started, and is there a certain way that these things must be done to get into heaven? I'm very curious.

That tract also brings me back to the fact that many christians believe that in order to be saved you have to recruit people.
Wait a minute. Would that be a "good work"?

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 10, 2008 12:44 PM

PIP,
True Christians do not believe that in order to be saved you have to recruit people. Yes, it would be a GREAT work to share the wonderful news of Jesus Christ with someone. However, that doesn't get you into heaven.

Anon,

I don’t think that any two churches, within the same religion

But that's just it...walk into any Catholic Church anywhere in the entire world, and the interpretation will be identical to all the other Cathholic churches...see what I'm saying? How do you personally know who to believe? If you rely on yourself, isn't that kind of presumptious?

"I'm very curious."
Well Anon I can't answer that question. I just hope God accepts me.

mk,
That's not true. I have expressed many things here that a priest told me and his congregation when I was Catholic that were wrong according to Catholic teachings in you & other's opinions, and it was written off that "there's just some bad apples in the bunch". Like when I was told that if I ate meat on Friday's I would go straight to hell.

I know for a fact that teachings/interpretations about homosexuality is different depending on what priest is speaking. No two are alike in their interpretations. Like I stated, doctrines & traditions may be the same, but interpretations are always going to be different.

I do not and have never relied on myself. I look to God's word, and ask, in Jesus' name, for the Holy Spirit to guide me and teach me according to His will.

PIP,
Then how can you say what was posted here was wrong or that the tract was disgusting? Are you SURE it isn't true?

And hoping? Are you guaranteed another day here on earth? My point is, I, for one, would want to be absolutely sure. If I died tomorrow, I'd be kicking myself in the butt for not bothering to get to know God while I was still alive. Sure, politics, science, all of the worldly things are important here on earth, but isn't it more important to secure you're eternity while you're still here? There's time for both. The question is, how much time.

The only way I know of to be absolutely sure, is to study the Bible...God's word.

If a priest is not doing his homework then it is possible yes, for him to misinterpret a passage. But the definitive interpretation is out there.

Today's reading was about the temptation of Jesus in the desert. Every church, every where, is reading the same reading. And every priest is giving a homily on some aspect of that reading that has been approved by the church.

Are you telling me that that priest told you in those exact words, that your were going to hell for eating meat on a Friday?

You see, there is also a checks and balances in our church. You go to the catechism, and if it differs from what the priest said, you can show him and he'll capitulate.

mk, "...How do you personally know who to believe? ..."

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 1:04 PM

That's just it, mk. My point exactly. Rely on the word of God and not men. I hate to bring this up, but it is relevent in making this point. How do YOU personally know who to believe? All of those "bad priests" in the Catholic church that molested and raped innocent children, you know, they were teaching the congregations for sometimes 20+ years AFTER they molested. People came to them for religious advice througout all of those years. How many people did they deceive if they didn't have God in them?

You & others claimed that they were not of God. Did the congregation know that as they were teaching them for all those years? Your priest, for example, do you know any dirty secrets he may have? (and I'm not saying that he does, it's just an example). How can you trust the priests that are telling you things, when the priests themselves, on many occasions, cannot be trusted?

Again, God's word is the truth and never lies. Why is sola scriptura in your opininon so bad?

"Then how can you say what was posted here was wrong or that the tract was disgusting? Are you SURE it isn't true?"
It just disgusts me. It's my opinion. That interpretation of God leaves me to believe he is unjust. And I don't believe he is.

"And hoping? Are you guaranteed another day here on earth?"
No, I just do the best I can.

"My point is, I, for one, would want to be absolutely sure."
But you don't know for sure! Nobody does.

"If I died tomorrow, I'd be kicking myself in the butt for not bothering to get to know God while I was still alive. Sure, politics, science, all of the worldly things are important here on earth, but isn't it more important to secure you're eternity while you're still here? There's time for both. The question is, how much time."
I do believe in God and Jesus' divinity, but I'm skeptical of religion at this time. I hope if I die tomorrow God does not throw me in the fires of hell (YAHHH!) because I didn't take someone's word for it. The Bible is complex and different interpretations abound. I don't know if Jesus ever guaranteed anything except for God's love, mercy, and grace. After all, the Pharisees were also pretty sure of themselves. I can never be. Do you really think you are positive?

"The only way I know of to be absolutely sure, is to study the Bible...God's word."
But as you can see, the Bible is interpreted different ways. There is no "surety" there!

anon,

How can you trust the priests that are telling you things,

Because as I said, everything he believes or is supposed to believe is written down and can be looked up...He's not giving his own ideas. He's giving the churches teachings. He is speaking for the church and everything he says can be checked.

How do you know when the spirit is working or when it's just your imagination? Or worse yet satan? How do you know whose "voice" you are hearing? I would imagine that satan could have a field day with this. All he'd have to do is disguise his voice so that you believed you were hearing the Holy Spirit.

mk,
Regarding your post from 1:23 PM, yes, those were his EXACT words.

"Today's reading was about the temptation of Jesus in the desert. Every church, every where, is reading the same reading. And every priest is giving a homily on some aspect of that reading that has been approved by the church."

I understand that, and I think that method of all churches in the same religion teaching the same thing on the same day is wonderful. Catholics all over the world can discuss what they learned that day on that particular lesson outside of the church, at home, etc., and are all on the same page within that discussion.

However, the priests "duty" is not just to do that alone. People require additional teachings sometimes, and have questions, and need additional explanations. They go to their priest for these things. This is the part that I'm talking about. Each priest will have a different "interpretation" from what he has learned, his life experiences, his examples, etc.

Each priest will have a different "interpretation" from what he has learned, his life experiences, his examples, etc.

First, isn't this true for everybody, and second isn't he also being led by the Holy Spirit?

PIP,
I am absolutely, 110% sure that I am going to heaven. God said so Himself throughout the bible.

The bible really isn't that complicated if you know how to read it. Yes, of course one can make it complex by additionally studying the history behind each book, translations, etc. But the meaning of the bible is not complex at all.

Here's a link for the key to understanding the bible that really helped me alot:

http://havefaith.org/new_page_24a.htm

and this one:

http://havefaith.org/new_page_1b.htm

I'm not a big fan of religions either, PIP. Studying the bible is not a religion, but it sure is the best way to know God!

Don't you go to your pastor or a friend when you come upon a scripture that is hard to understand. Isn't Bethany telling me what she believes the scriptures mean? Am I to scrutinize every aspect of Bethanys' or yours for that matter, life to make sure that her interpretation is worth listening to?

You are doing here on Jill's exactly what you are saying a priest would do. You are giving us your interpretation of scripture and asking us to accept it because you have spoken to the Holy Spirit...Why should I listen to you, and not a priest. If the priest says something to me that feels off or not right, I can check it out in the catechism. I have no where to check what you are claiming.

How do you know when the spirit is working or when it's just your imagination? Or worse yet satan? How do you know whose "voice" you are hearing? I would imagine that satan could have a field day with this. All he'd have to do is disguise his voice so that you believed you were hearing the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 1:36 PM

Were you serious, or was that a joke? If you were serious, I don't hear words, mk. God works in my heart and mind and shows me things sometimes through an experience in life, but most of the time through His word.

By the grace of God, and the power of Jesus Christ, satan has been bound out of my life, mk. Satan doesn't speak to me.

First, isn't this true for everybody, and second isn't he also being led by the Holy Spirit?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 1:45 PM

Only the one's that are truly believers in Christ, mk. Do you believe that the priests that molest little children are being led by the Holy Spirit?

that's why I put "voice" in quotes. Probably should have put words in quotes also. I know what you mean. What I'm asking is how do you know it is not satan speaking to your heart or your mind?

Wait, back up, are you saying that satan can no longer influence you?

I believe that it is entirely possible to be led by the Holy Spirit in some matters and led by satan in others. In matters of the church, yes I do believe that the priest is being led by the Holy Spirit. In personal matters, I believe he is as suseptible as I am to satan.

Do you believe that only "good" people can be followers of Jesus?

And again, if there is any question as to whether or not a priest is speaking from the Holy Spirit, then I can check it in the catechism and I beleive that everything in the catechism was inspired by the Spirit.

You are giving us your interpretation of scripture and asking us to accept it because you have spoken to the Holy Spirit...Why should I listen to you, and not a priest. If the priest says something to me that feels off or not right, I can check it out in the catechism. I have no where to check what you are claiming.

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 1:48 PM

No, the Holy Spirit speaks to me, not vice versa, mk.

"If the priest says something to me that feels off or not right, I can check it out in the catechism. I have no where to check what you are claiming."

I would run from the hills if what someone was teaching me was off or not right. Maybe that's the Holy Spirit showing you to not believe what is being said. Not a voice, but a feeling in the gut. That's how I think the Holy Spirit "speaks" to us.

You do have somewhere to "check", mk...God's word. The Holy Bible. Why look into the "catechism" when God's word is so readily available to you? Bethany's link is wonderful. Use it to enter a keyword, and will bring up all of the scriptures, God's word, that goes along with that keyword search. It's a wonderful tool!

By the way, I'm very happy that you are speaking to me again, and I wish you would tell me what it is that I do that upsets you. I certainly don't mean to and I would like to avoid it in the future...

You are giving us your interpretation of scripture and asking us to accept it because you the Holy Spirt has spoken to you...Why should I listen to you, and not a priest. If the priest says something to me that feels off or not right, I can check it out in the catechism. I have no where to check what you are claiming.

mk, By the grace of God, and the power of Jesus Christ, satan has been bound out of my life, mk. Satan doesn't speak to me.

Satan cannot influence me either, that is correct. Will he put temptations in front of me hoping that I will fall into his trap? Of course. But here's what I do:

Epesians 6:11-20
I....

11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

19And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

20For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

You do have somewhere to "check", mk...God's word. The Holy Bible. Why look into the "catechism" when God's word is so readily available to you? Bethany's link is wonderful. Use it to enter a keyword, and will bring up all of the scriptures, God's word, that goes along with that keyword search. It's a wonderful tool!

Okay, first we need to clear something up. I read scripture. I read it on my own, I hear it in church, I certainly read enough of it on here, (lol)...so it's not like Catholics don't read scripture. I gave my husband a bible for Christmas.

Second, that is a circular argument. Here's what it sounds like you are saying.

You: The Holy Spirit speaks to me so I know what I interpret is true.

ME: The Holy Spirit speaks to my priest, so I know what he says is true.

You: Don't believe him. Believe me.

ME: Why?

You: Because the Holy Spirit speaks to me.

ME: But He speaks to me too. And my priest. And to the pope...why should I listen to you and not them?

You: Because I read scripture and the Holy Spirit speaks to me...

Do you see? Why should I listen to you, who is telling me the exact opposite of what I interpret scripture to say, and not to my priests, the doctors of the church and the pope, who are saying exactly what I am interpreting?

Anon,

I think the Bible gives us guidelines to get there, but I see no guarantee there. I am not sure, and if I was (this is just my personality) I would just get complacent. I don't think much of anything is certain. I don't know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Likewise, I don't know what kind of judgement or afterlife awaits. I just hope I'm good enough to get to spend my afterlife with God. May God's mercy and grace be on all of us when we die, because I doubt it will be a Jack Chick adventure. Jesus warned us to not be like the Pharisees, who thought they were doing what God wants, were very sure of themselves, but too sure to open up and see Jesus for what he is. I don't want to become like that so I reserve my sureity for the truth of God's love. Jesus came to save us, but I think there is no guarantee who or who will not be ultimately saved.

You are giving us your interpretation of scripture and asking us to accept it because you the Holy Spirt has spoken to you...Why should I listen to you, and not a priest. If the priest says something to me that feels off or not right, I can check it out in the catechism. I have no where to check what you are claiming.

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:07 PM

mk, Bethany and I ARE giving you scriptures. We both posted verses straight from the bible. The verses from the bible backed up exactly what we said. Where didn't they?

Well if satan can tempt you, how do you always know it is him? I certainly don't. But when I do, I simply say "In the name of Jesus, be gone...you have no power here"....the point is, he's sneaky. How do you know that he is spinning your interpretation? Do you really believe that you are incapable of making a mistake, because you have faith?

Jesus came to save us, but I think there is no guarantee who or who will not be ultimately saved.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 10, 2008 2:13 PM

I think you just answered your own question there!

Well if satan can tempt you, how do you always know it is him? I certainly don't. But when I do, I simply say "In the name of Jesus, be gone...you have no power here"....the point is, he's sneaky. How do you know that he is spinning your interpretation? Do you really believe that you are incapable of making a mistake, because you have faith?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:15 PM

I know it's him because when I feel leery about a situation, I pray about it. God is walking with me every step of the way in my journey through life. Yes, I may step in a pothole, but He's right there to pull me out. I may have a boulder in my path, but He's right there to move it out of the way. The mistakes I make in life are when I choose to do things my way instead of God's.

Christ is in me, and more powerful than Satan. Jesus has conquered Satan, mk, and Jesus lives in me. Why do you think that every situation that you feel is bad in life comes from Satan? God teaches us in various ways. That's why we put our faith in Him. Sometimes the trials we have to go through are less that pleasurable, but they come from God, or are allowed by God. The book of Job is an excellent example of this. God allowed satan to try to destroy Job, but Job kept his faith in God. God saw him out of the horrible things that happened to him, and blessed him abundantly for keeping his faith in God through his tribulations.

Anon,
I'm confused. You say that you are 1l0% sure that you are saved, but tell PIP that no one can know for sure? I think I'm misunderstanding something here, and I want to get it straight before I get myself into trouble. Could you explain?

Anon,

May I ask you something straight out? Do you believe that Catholics are Christians? Do you believe that we are saved?

Anon,
I'm confused. You say that you are 1l0% sure that you are saved, but tell PIP that no one can know for sure? I think I'm misunderstanding something here, and I want to get it straight before I get myself into trouble. Could you explain?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:31 PM

Sorry, I should have explained myself in more than 9 words! PIP said that "Jesus came to save us, but I think there is no guarantee who or who will not be ultimately saved."

I said that she answered her own question from her first 5 words. Jesus came to save us. She thinks that there's no guarantees who or who will not be ultimatley saved. However, if Jesus came to save us, then right there is the guarantee - Jesus!

Sorry for the confusion.

"I think you just answered your own question there!"
Which one?

Now I'm really confused...you ask if why I believe satan is behind every bad thing that happens to be me then give the example of Job...Satan was behind the bad things that happened to him.

I understand that God "allows" bad things to happen to us and then uses them for good, or teaching lessons.

You believe in once saved always saved, don't you?

We don't.

We believe that from the minute you say amen to God, satan steps up the war to win you back. And we do believe that you can be "won" back. I guess you don't.

Anon,

May I ask you something straight out? Do you believe that Catholics are Christians? Do you believe that we are saved?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:32 PM

I don't think that any religious group as a whole can make a claim to being saved. It's an individual choice. However, it is not my call. It's God's. Only He knows the hearts of people and if they truly believe that His Son, Jesus Christ, came, died for our sins, and rose again on the third day.

"However, if Jesus came to save us, then right there is the guarantee - Jesus!"
No. If Jesus came to save us, he could have come to save everyone who is a good person, people from other religions that put their faith in god, etc. Or he could be picky and only choose people who are really really good people who spend their life doing good works that also believe in Jesus' divinity and all that. There is no guarantee who will or will not go to heaven, so why go on such a presumption?

Sorry for the confusion.

That's okay...the whole thing can be confusing. Mostly because I forget that once again, some of our premises are different, and that makes the whole discussion a little more difficult.

You you believe in Grace alone, Once saved always saved, Sola Scriptura...

Why don't you believe in the true presence, if you believe what scripture says? That one seems like a no brainer to me. No disrespect meant there, just that the words are so plain and repeated so often...why do you think he didn't mean them literally?

Anon,

Only He knows the hearts of people and if they truly believe that His Son, Jesus Christ, came, died for our sins, and rose again on the third day.

But this is exactly what the Cathholic church teaches. So would you say that if I believe that, I too am 110% sure of my salvation?

mk,
Regarding Job, remember...God allowed it. Without God's ok for satan to try to destroy Job, satan could not. God also put restrictions on Satan. Satan could not lay a finger on Job:

Job 1:6-12

6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"

Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied.

10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.

11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

God controls everything that happens here on earth. Satan only has so much power, but that power was also given to him by God. God is still in control every day of what happens to each and every one of us.

"You believe in once saved always saved, don't you?

We don't.

We believe that from the minute you say amen to God, satan steps up the war to win you back. And we do believe that you can be "won" back. I guess you don't." Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:38 PM

No, I don't believe what you guys believe. I believe that satan can try to keep you as far away from God as he can to make your life miserable, but God will always prevail. Satan does not want the truth about God to be spread. Satan wants to keep as many people away from God as he can. That's his goal. He wants lots of company in hell with him. If I'm miserable because my life isn't going right, would I still tell people about God? Of course not. Who would possibly want to hear about God from a person who's life was in torments? That's why I think it's so important to keep strong faith in God, and pray ALOT! I try to find things that I think are bad in my life as a good thing, a lesson from God. Maybe He's testing my faith? Maybe He's preparing me for something that will happen in my life 5-10 years from now? Maybe He's teaching me a lesson? I don't think that anything happens on accident. I truly believe that all things come from God and work out for good for those that love Him.

I also believe that once saved, always saved.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 10, 2008 2:39 PM

PIP, you said you read the bible. Why did Jesus come to earth, and what did He do when He was here? Wasn't His blood shed for everyone, every sin, and we just need to believe in Him?

Why don't you believe in the true presence, if you believe what scripture says? That one seems like a no brainer to me. No disrespect meant there, just that the words are so plain and repeated so often...why do you think he didn't mean them literally?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:41 PM

Now I'm confused. I really don't know what you are asking, there. True presence of what? Scriptures regarding what?

But this is exactly what the Cathholic church teaches. So would you say that if I believe that, I too am 110% sure of my salvation?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:43 PM

Only God know your heart, mk. I don't. Are you 110% sure of your salvation?

Anon I thought I clearly laid this out in my last post.

"Wasn't His blood shed for everyone, every sin"
His blood was shed for everyone, so why isn't everyone saved?

"we just need to believe in Him?"
I believe in Him but I don't think I have a guaranteed in. It's like those rappers who praise Jesus in one line and talk about doing drive-bys the next. Is that what Jesus wants? Where are we gonna draw the line, and if so, aren't we going on the assumption we know who God is going to let in and who is not? For example, how do you know that Westboro Baptist Church isn't right. They could be! They read the Bible too! In that case, we are all going to hell.

But this is exactly what the Cathholic church teaches. So would you say that if I believe that, I too am 110% sure of my salvation?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 2:43 PM

Also, the Catholic church may teach it, but it doesn't by any means mean that all of the parishoners believe it.

Anon,

Now I'm confused. I really don't know what you are asking, there. True presence of what? Scriptures regarding what?

Oops, sorry, the True Presence...that the bread and wine is changed into Jesus'. You believe that this is a symbol, but scripture speaks of it literally...

also, please answer my post about what I do wrong that upsets you.

and what about the Luther contract that I posted?

PIP, ""Wasn't His blood shed for everyone, every sin"
His blood was shed for everyone, so why isn't everyone saved?"

Because not all people believe in Him, PIP. Not everyone believes that He came here and did this.

Those rappers may not believe it in their hearts, PIP. I can say that I'm purple with pink polk dots on my feet, but it doesn't make it true. Again, only God knows the hearts of man.

God also says that "you'll know them by their fruits".

PIP, if you've confessed that you're a sinner, and that Jesus came here, died for your sins, and rose again on the third day, you DO have a guaranteed "in". God said it Himself! I know. Sounds WAY too simple. But God made it that way through Jesus. It's a free gift from Him. If He made it too hard, He'd have no company for eternity! Just pray to Him, PIP, and ask Him to show you, OK?

Also, the Catholic church may teach it, but it doesn't by any means mean that all of the parishoners believe it.

But I'm not talking about parishioners that don't believe...I'm asking you, knowing that I believe what the Catholic church teaches, 100%, including that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for our sins and was risen up on the third day...Do you consider me, a practicing Catholic to be A.saved and B. a Christian?

So again, I ask, would you say that if I believe that, I too am 110% sure of my salvation?

12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Well obviously satan isn't going to come into your bedroom tonight and beat you up, but you still have free will and God allowed him to tempt and "torture" Job. At any time, Job could have caved. But it was up to Job. Not every Christian has that conviction. My question is, What if Job had given up? Would you say that he was still saved. Or that he never was saved to begin with?

mk,
not ignoring you, just a long post coming to answer your 3:13pm one. And just for the record, I never hated you, and you don't do anything wrong to upset me.
:)

So again, I ask, would you say that if I believe that, I too am 110% sure of my salvation?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 3:16 PM

Yes, mk, I would. But only God knows your heart and knows if that's what you truly believe in your heart. I don't know your heart. By your words, and believing that it's coming straight from your heart, then yes, I would believe so.

Do you think that I, not being Catholic, no christening, no confession, am Christian and am going to heaven?

We got off track here somehow on the satan/job thing.

My point is not that satan cause bad things to happen but that satan tries to get you to sin. To turn your back on God. You saying that God has you covered reminds me of todays gospel reading...You don't test God. It also implies that once you accept Jesus' as your master you are somehow exempt from sin/sinning...or protected. And unless you have given up your free will, you are susceptible to his tempations...

Anon,

For the same reasons that you stated, absolutely. If you truly love God, and truly desire heaven, then yes, I would say you are headed there. I think where we diverge is that I believe you could change your mind and You don't think that is possible (isn't that what once saved always saved means?)

Anon,

And just for the record, I never hated you, and you don't do anything wrong to upset me.
:)

No, I did'nt ever think that you hated me, but once you stop talking to me because I referred to you as "she" and then the other day...I just don't understand what I did, and I really, really want to.

mk, "The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification essentially says that Lutherans and Catholics explain justification in different ways but share the same basic understanding. The central passage reads, “Together we confess: by grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.” The declaration acknowledges that good works are a genuine response to God’s grace—not the cause of it. The declaration also rescinds the formal condemnations of both the Catholic and Lutheran Churches against one another."

OK, sounds good. Is this just the basic understanding that both religious groups teach?

But the first sentence, "Lutherans and Catholics explain justification in different ways but share the same basic understanding." Why not just leave it basic? It's pretty easy to understand, is complete and jives with scripture. I think that the complexity of the explanation is where the basic truth tends to get lost.

As far as your other question about “true presence”, I have yet to read a scripture that didn’t speak of bread and wine, or bread and cup, as nothing more than a remembrance what Christ accomplished on the cross. His body was broken, the bread is broken. His blood poured out, hence, wine in the cup. I don’t read anywhere that any person can take a piece of bread and some juice or wine and ACTUALLY turn it into Christ’s body and blood. He died once. And remember, the disciples had no idea what Jesus was doing there at the last supper. They followed his instructions, but had no idea what would happen to him the next day. Jesus gave no instructions at all, other than to “do this in remembrance of me” on that day. Where the entire Catholic ritual comes from is beyond me.

Luke 22:17-20
17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Maybe I'm totally missing something here, mk. Can you post the scripture that says it's actually Christ's body and His actual blood that gets transformed from bread and wine by a priest? Doesn't the priest, then, offer Christ up to God? Do have a scripture for that, also. I am curious.

Anon,

Here are the explanations of the scriptures but not the actual scripture passages...I can do that to if you want. I'll do it in parts, because it's rather long...

(a). Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-Ia

(b). Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice

Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 - none of Jesus' bones were broken.

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

Exodus 29:33 – God commands that they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus.

Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.

Top

(a). Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "poured out" in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the "breaking of the bread") to fulfill Jesus' command "do this in remembrance of me."

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to "feed" the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to "do this," that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and "pitched His tabernacle" among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed" His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

1 Cor. 12:13 - we "drink" of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or "ecclesia" (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn't come to Jesus' sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.

Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.

Top

Well obviously satan isn't going to come into your bedroom tonight and beat you up, but you still have free will and God allowed him to tempt and "torture" Job. At any time, Job could have caved. But it was up to Job. Not every Christian has that conviction. My question is, What if Job had given up? Would you say that he was still saved. Or that he never was saved to begin with?

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 3:20 PM

I think you're confusing salvation through Jesus by what He did on the cross, and the law that Job was under at that time. If Job turned away from God, that would be disobedience to God. God dealt with the people under the law differently than how he deals with us. We are not saved by following the law, we are saved by grace (what Jesus did on the cross). What would happen to Job if he caved? I don't know. It would depend on how God would deal with them. I honestly can't answer that.

(c). Jesus' Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten

Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - "sacrifice of praise" or "toda" refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase "the cup of blessing" refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus' Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means "house of bread."

Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a "manger" (which means "to eat"). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

Top

(d). The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus' One Eternal Sacrifice; it's Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

1 Cor. 10:16 - "the cup of blessing" or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul's usage of the phrase "table of the Lord" in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase "table of the Lord" to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase "table of the Lord" in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

Top

e). Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on Our Behalf

Rev. 1 to 22 - Jesus is described as the "Lamb" 28 times in the book of Revelation. This is because Jesus emphasizes His sacrifice in heaven and in His Holy Catholic Church.

Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed in heaven with a long robe and golden girdle like the Old Testament priests who offered animal sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4.

Rev. 2:17 - the spiritual manna, our Lord's glorious body and blood, is emphasized in the heavenly feast.

Rev. 3:20 - as Priest and Paschal Lamb, our Lord shares the Eucharistic meal with us to seal His New Covenant. Through the covenant of his body and blood, we are restored to the Father and become partakers of the divine nature.

Rev. 5:6 - this verse tells us that Jesus in His glory still looks like a lamb who was slain. Also, Jesus is "standing" as though a Lamb who was slain. Lambs that are slain lie down. This odd depiction shows Jesus stands at the Altar as our eternal priest in forever offering Himself to the Father for our salvation.

Rev. 7:14 - the blood of the Lamb is eternally offered in heaven with the washing of the robes to make them white.

Rev. 14:1, Heb. 12:22 - Zion is the city where Jesus established the Eucharist and which was miraculously preserved after the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Psalms 2:6 and 132:13. It represents the union of heaven and earth, of divinity and humanity. This is why those who enter into the Eucharistic celebration on earth enter into the presence of innumerable angels, the souls of the just made perfect, Jesus the Mediator of the Covenant and His sprinkled blood, and God the Judge of all.

Rev. 19:13 - in all His glory, Jesus' sacrifice is eternally present as He presents Himself to the Father clothed in a robe dipped in blood. Jesus' sacrifice is the focus in heaven and in the Mass. When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity.

Rev. 19:9 - we are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb where we become one with Him by consuming His body and blood. This is the nuptial union of divinity and humanity.

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as "High Priest." But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.

Heb. 2:18 - although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.

Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.

Heb. 8:3 - as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.

Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 - the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).

Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Heb. 9:14 - the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ's offering is ongoing.

Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus' blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.

Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).

Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.

Heb. 10:19 - we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.

Heb. 10:22 - our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus' perpetual priesthood in heaven.

Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.

Heb. 13:20-21 - Jesus died once, but His blood of the eternal covenant is eternally offered to equip us (present tense) with everything good that we may do God's will.

Heb. 13:8 - this is because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. While His suffering was temporal (because bodily pain is temporal), Jesus and His sacrifice are eternal (because redemption, salvation, and the mediation of the New covenant are eternal).

Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.

1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven.

1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus cleanses us (present tense) from all sin. His blood cannot currently cleanse us unless it is currently offered for us.

Top

John 6:53-58, 66-67

"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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.' After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, 'Will you also go away?'"

1 Corinthians 11:27

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

Did Protestants Follow the Bible on This?

It is very difficult to see how they did. Although protestant leaders claimed always to be following clear biblical doctrine, when one actually looks to the bible one finds little to support the Protestant/Evangelical position.

LUKE 22
19. And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them saying, " This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20. In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, saying. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured put for you."

Protestants who deny the miracle of the Real Presence of Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist, tend to ignore Jesus clear words "This is my body" and "my blood", and concentrate on the phrase "Do this in remembrance of me." Using this to argue that the Eucharist was only meant to be symbolic. But of course, if we do something in memory of someone, (give a gift, for example) that does not necessarily mean that what we do (or the gift) is not real.

So let's look at some other passages, to see whether they confirm the symbolic, or the Real, view of Communion.

JOHN 6
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

This seems very clear. Jesus is not speaking symbolically. He is stating that His flesh and blood are not only real food and real drink, but that His body and blood are necessary to give life. In fact as we see in a following verse, his hearers certainly understood his teaching in this manner.

60. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

And some of them did not accept His teaching then, either:

66. From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Paul too reaffirms the reality of Jesus's body and blood in Communion.

1 Corinthians 11
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Once again, here is an insistence on the reality of the presence of the body and blood of Jesus in Communion, and a demand that we recognise the sacredness of this sacrament. Yet this seems to be another of those biblical passages that most Protestants completely ignore.

What Did the Early Christians Believe?

Attempts are sometimes made to imply that the early Christians treated Communion in a cavalier manner, and therefore could not have believed in the Real Presence. But here they confuse Communion with the Agape Meal, or Love Feast, at which bread and wine were shared. If, however, we look at the writings of the Christian leaders of the earliest period, we can see that the real presence in the Eucharist was a central belief of the Early Church:

Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of both Peter and John, writes against Gnostic heretics of his day:
They even abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised up again. (Epistle to the Smyrneans, 7, 8).A.D. 110

Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 155, describes the early Christian belief about the Lord’s Supper this way:

And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed in the bath for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration, and who so lives as Christ has directed. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh (First Apology, 1:62).

So, we see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants.

mk,
I looked up 90% of those verses as they actually read in the bible (KJV). I still do not see anywhere that it is ACTUALLY Jesus' body and blood. They REPRESENT His body and blood.

Seriously, look them up and read a few verses before and after. Better yet, the whole chapters so you can get the whole context of what was actually going on there. I think you'll be surprised.

This is DEFINATELY something that we will always disagree on. Thanks for posting so much, though. I'll just never believe that it's Jesus' actual body and blood, and that the priest can miraculously turn bread and juice into it. When you drink it, does it taste like blood? When you eat it, does it taste like flesh? Of course not. It isn't.

I'll just never believe that it's Jesus' actual body and blood

this is exactly what they said to Jesus and then they walked away...

mk,
where was Jesus' instructions to the disciples or anyone else for that matter on how to actually turn bread and wind into actual body and blood? It has to be symbolic, otherwise there would be instructions on how to do it.

You have actual bread, and actual fruit juice. Where are the instructions on how to turn it into body and blood?

When you drink it, does it taste like blood? When you eat it, does it taste like flesh?

No, but that it because it is only changed in substance, not form.

The appearance remains the same, the substance is changed permanently. Luther believed in this to the end...

It was followers of Luther that stopped accepting it.

My real question is, how come if it says right there in scripture that: 1 Corinthians 11
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

And, "53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."

and deny it? It's right there, clear as day. Why is this a scripture passage that you don't accept?

You said earlier that you wanted to stick with the "basics"...well how much more basic does it get? This is so clear cut to me...

mk,
where was Jesus' instructions to the disciples or anyone else for that matter on how to actually turn bread and wind into actual body and blood? It has to be symbolic, otherwise there would be instructions on how to do it.

You have actual bread, and actual fruit juice. Where are the instructions on how to turn it into body and blood?

When Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of me", he means do this "ritual" in remembrance of me. The prayers over the Eucharist are exactly the words that were said at the last supper. No priest can change even one word or it invalidates the sacrament...The words that he spoke...these ARE the instructions...

And it is never fruit juice. It must be wine. And unleavened wheat bread. It must not have anything else in it. Can't be walnut bread and grape juice...because this is what Jesus did...these are also his "instructions"...

I threw a lot at you...perhaps you want to take some time to look it over and read what your church has to say? I'll understand....

Anon (4:11 PM),

The answer is in the scripture you quoted above at 4:11 PM:

"19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY* which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

*He doesn't say, this is a symbol of my body. He says "This is my body".

and deny it? It's right there, clear as day. Why is this a scripture passage that you don't accept?

You said earlier that you wanted to stick with the "basics"...well how much more basic does it get? This is so clear cut to me...

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 4:43 PM

Because I believe it's symbolic. It is not a renewal or a revisitation of the bodily sacrifice of Christ. It is a remembrance and a memorial use of symbols blessed by God. It's like if I were showing someone how I got in a car accident, and used matchbox cars to do it. The matchbox cars do not become the real cars that were involved in the accident, they symolize the cars in the accident.

When I read each and every scripture, I see symbolism in the bread and wine. Jesus was offered to heaven from earth once, not over and over again. The scripture below is clear as day.

Hebrews 9:23-28

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Janet,
"19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY"

It says, "And he took bread and said this is my body."

He did not say, "here is the bread, watch it turn into my body"

I think the symbolism of bread to body is clear.
I also think we'll all just have to agree to disagree.

My point is not that satan cause bad things to happen but that satan tries to get you to sin. To turn your back on God. You saying that God has you covered reminds me of todays gospel reading...You don't test God. It also implies that once you accept Jesus' as your master you are somehow exempt from sin/sinning...or protected. And unless you have given up your free will, you are susceptible to his tempations...

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 4:06 PM

Oh my goodness, absolutely not! The devil sure can tempt me and I can still sin. God does protect me, but I can absolutely not listen to Him because of my free will. It would be stupid to do so, though! In my past, I didn't listen, and sinned, and boy do I regret it! I have learned through some tough times to stay focused on God, put on the armor, and pray, pray, pray!!!
God stuck with me through it all and definately taught me some pretty important lessons!

Anonymous 2:57 PM,

"God controls everything that happens here on earth. Satan only has so much power, but that power was also given to him by God. God is still in control every day of what happens to each and every one of us."

How do you explain "free will" which we exercise at every turn, if we are not even controlling our own actions????

"I truly believe that all things come from God and work out for good for those that love Him."

You mean "all GOOD things?" If you truly believe that, then why would you also say the following:

"If I'm miserable because my life isn't going right, would I still tell people about God? Of course not. Who would possibly want to hear about God from a person who's life was in torments?

Your WITNESS would be a TRUE SIGN of FAITH in God's undying love for us. Is a miserable person somehow a bad person, or a Godless person? I don't think so. Sadness and misery are just part of the human condition.

"II try to find things that I think are bad in my life as a good thing, a lesson from God. Maybe He's testing my faith? I also believe that once saved, always saved."

Why does God tests the faith of a person already saved? God already knows our hearts. Once saved, always saved, right? I've already read the scripture passages you've posted, so if you can answer without quoting scripture, I'd appreciate it.

"Because I believe it's symbolic."

LOL I see where this conversation is heading...seems vaguely familiar.

Janet, "How do you explain "free will" which we exercise at every turn, if we are not even controlling our own actions????"

Janet, you misunderstood, or I didn't explain it well. (probably the latter) We still do have free will. However, nothing happens without God's ok. If I wanted to jump off of a bridge to end my life, and every bone of my body wanted to do that, don't you think that God maybe giving me a sign to change my mind constitutes God being in charge? Do you not think God is in charge of all things?

"You mean "all GOOD things?" If you truly believe that, then why would you also say the following:

"If I'm miserable because my life isn't going right, would I still tell people about God? Of course not. Who would possibly want to hear about God from a person who's life was in torments?"

Janet,
You took that piece totally out of context. My whole statement was:

No, I don't believe what you guys believe. I believe that satan can try to keep you as far away from God as he can to make your life miserable, but God will always prevail. Satan does not want the truth about God to be spread. Satan wants to keep as many people away from God as he can. That's his goal. He wants lots of company in hell with him. If I'm miserable because my life isn't going right, would I still tell people about God? Of course not. Who would possibly want to hear about God from a person who's life was in torments? That's why I think it's so important to keep strong faith in God, and pray ALOT! I try to find things that I think are bad in my life as a good thing, a lesson from God. Maybe He's testing my faith? Maybe He's preparing me for something that will happen in my life 5-10 years from now? Maybe He's teaching me a lesson? I don't think that anything happens on accident. I truly believe that all things come from God and work out for good for those that love Him.

I was responding to a question of the devil trying to destroy people and why he would want to do that. It was hypothetical, "IF", and that's why I followed with everything following the word "torments".

"Your WITNESS would be a TRUE SIGN of FAITH in God's undying love for us. Is a miserable person somehow a bad person, or a Godless person? I don't think so. Sadness and misery are just part of the human condition. "

I totally agree, Janet. Again, read my post above. I think it's ok to feel sad, I just try to look to God and how wonderful His plan is for me when I start to feel down.

"Why does God tests the faith of a person already saved? God already knows our hearts. Once saved, always saved, right? I've already read the scripture passages you've posted, so if you can answer without quoting scripture, I'd appreciate it."

I don't know, exactly. I believe though that it's the same reason why we test our kids obedience to us. I also feel that our faith gets stronger when we are tested, so maybe that's why God does it. I don't know how God thinks, Janet, or why He does certain things. All I do know is that He is WAY smarter than I could ever imagine, that His plan is perfect, and that I will trust Him with all of my heart.

Jesus was offered to heaven from earth once, not over and over again.

He's not be REoffered now either. We are being transferred back in time and taking part in the original offering...we transcend time and space...

This is why I love Christians.

No two can agree on what the Bible really means, and each one knows that they alone know the eternal truth.

He's not be REoffered now either. We are being transferred back in time and taking part in the original offering...we transcend time and space...

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 5:26 PM

ARE YOU SERIOUS????

"Why does God tests the faith of a person already saved? God already knows our hearts. Once saved, always saved, right? I've already read the scripture passages you've posted, so if you can answer without quoting scripture, I'd appreciate it."

This is an excellent question. If a person is saved once, then there is no need for "testing". It would be unreasonable to test someone. Test by definition means something that you would have to pass. But you already passed it...

Why do you take everything in the bible literally, except in this passage?

"19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY"

It says, "And he took bread and said this is my body."

He did not say, "here is the bread, watch it turn into my body"

I think the symbolism of bread to body is clear.
I also think we'll all just have to agree to disagree.

Anon, you can't get much clearer than that - there's nothing to suggest symbolism at all if you read the words on the page. The BIBLE says that Jesus said: "This IS my body". He doesn't say we are going to be able to SEE the transformation. But that doesn't mean it is not there. How can you not believe this is the word of GOD? God bless you.

I got a new laptop (family got sick of me hogging the computer) and I don't have the hang of it yet...sorry for the italics! Goofy machine!

Your statements should be true in any context. I read them in context, but it doesn't make sense.

Janet, "How do you explain "free will" which we exercise at every turn, if we are not even controlling our own actions????"

Janet, you misunderstood, or I didn't explain it well. (probably the latter) We still do have free will. However, nothing happens without God's ok. If I wanted to jump off of a bridge to end my life, and every bone of my body wanted to do that, don't you think that God maybe giving me a sign to change my mind constitutes God being in charge? Do you not think God is in charge of all things?

If you want to end your life by jumping off a bridge, you have no guarantee that God will grab your collar and pull you back up. Do you? The only way you're guaranteed to live is if you change your will. You have to make a choice to not jump.

If nothing happens without God's OK, then what happened to man's responsibility for his actions, which goes hand in hand with free will? God bless you, Anon.

Laura,

So you just gave up trying to find the truth????

How are you my love...I've been here all day and haven't really had a chance to visit the other threads...anything interesting going on?

ARE YOU SERIOUS????

As a heart attack.

yllas: All mainline Protestant denominations allow abortion.'

And many Catholic women have abortions as well, since they see that in the given situation the best thing to do is to end the pregnancy.

mk,
Deal.
lucky, you! Laptop. Must be nice in this below zero weather!!!

Janet,
I read the same verse and have a totally different view on what it says than you do. I'm sorry. You're way is clear as mud to me, as my way is to you.

Have a good night, all.

LOL Doug,

Where did that come from?

May God's mercy and grace be on all of us when we die, because I doubt it will be a Jack Chick adventure.

PIP, I hope you continue posting here and other places over the ages, because ol' Jacky Chick most certainly does apply, in response to peoples' fear of the unknown, etc.

Doug

LOL Doug, Where did that come from?

MK, from the fact that many Catholics (and Protestants, for that matter) have abortions when they themselves are actually in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the "party line" is and/.or what they might have said in the past.

Doug

Wow, I missed out on a lot! I don't know if I'll ever be able to catch up.

This is an excellent question. If a person is saved once, then there is no need for "testing". It would be unreasonable to test someone. Test by definition means something that you would have to pass. But you already passed it...

Marykay, if that was true, then God would not have allowed Satan to tempt Jesus. There is no doubt that Jesus did not need testing...yet, God allowed Him to be tested. There are certain things that God does that we don't understand the reasons for sometimes. That doesn't mean that there isn't a purpose to them or that He won't do it. :)

Anon,

Have a good night yourself!

LOL Doug, Where did that come from?

MK, from the fact that many Catholics (and Protestants, for that matter) have abortions when they themselves are actually in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the "party line" is and/.or what they might have said in the past

Yeah I got that...I meant, what brought it on? Silly boy!

Body and the Blood....I found this explanation on a website, which helps explain why we do believe that the language of the last supper when referring to the body and the blood, are actually figurative, not literal.

As with the creation account, we try to compare scripture with scripture, verse by verse, to have an idea of what is literal and what is figurative... I hope this helps you to understand better where we are coming from on this...

"This is

"The verb “is” is often used with a plain literal meaning. I can point to my car and say, “This is my car.” Nothing could be simpler than that. Yet the same verb is also used in a figurative sense. Pointing to the small dot on the map in the middle of the Mediterranean, I can tell you, “This is Malta, my country.” By that I mean, “This represents my country” -- for Malta is not a little dot on a piece of paper. Or, at the dinner table, to explain how I hit an old lady while driving to work, I may take a glass in one hand and the saltshaker in the other, and tell you, “This is my car, and this is the old woman.” That kind of speech is sensible only when we understand “This is” as “This represents.”

Take a biblical example of the symbolic meaning of the verb “to be.” Jesus taught: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels” (Matthew 13:37-39). Notice how Jesus repeatedly uses “is” and “are” to mean “represents” or “symbolizes” or “corresponds to.” The sower is the Son of man, meaning of course, that the sower represents the Son of man. The field is the world, that is, the field symbolizes the world, and so on.

Take another biblical example. In a narrative in the book of Samuel, three brave men put their lives at risk to bring fresh water for their master, David, from a well on the side of the Philistines. But when David found out about this, he would not drink it. He said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2 Samuel 23:17). Is not this the blood of the men? He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.

So, we should agree that (in the right context) “this is” could mean “this represents.” Now, I would like to show that there is ample contextual evidence that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus’ body and blood."

Oops! That wasn't all of it. I guess I must have missed some of it when I copied and pasted:

"Sacred signs

"1. The purpose of the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial, of Christ. After His bodily ascension into heaven, Christ is physically absent from His disciples on earth for many centuries until His second coming. So at the last supper with His disciples, He gave us a memorial that is both simple and profound in its significance:

When He had given thanks, He broke [the bread] and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24, 25).

Just as the Passover meal was a reminder of God's deliverance of His people from the slavery in Egypt, even so in the Lord's Supper shows the story of our redemption from the slavery of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. Bread and wine are appropriate symbols to remind us of His crucified body and the blood shed on Calvary.

2. When Jesus said, “This is my body,” He was physically present with the disciples. They could see, hear and touch him. John was actually leaning on His bosom. So when Jesus took bread and said, “This is my body,” it was only natural for the apostles to understand that the bread was the symbol rather than His actual body. The tangible proof that the bread did not become Jesus’ body, is the bodily, physical, substantial and material presence of the man Jesus Christ standing with the apostles.

Similarly, when He said, “This is my blood,” Jesus added, “…which is shed for you.” Which blood shed for us? The wine in the cup or the blood in Jesus' veins? Since the wine was never shed, it must represent the blood that was actually shed on the cross.

3. It is impossible to consistently interpret Jesus words literally. We have four slightly different accounts of Jesus' words relating to the cup and blood:

*

“For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
*

“This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24).
*

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).
*

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25).

The meanings of the four accounts correspond to each other. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul are essentially saying the same thing using different words. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to take “This is my blood” in Matthew and Mark either literally or figuratively. But could we say the same for Luke and Paul? Definitely not! “This cup is the new covenant.” The literal interpretation is absurd and meaningless -- certainly the cup is not literally the new testament! The wine is not transubstantiated into the new testament. The Holy Spirit who inspired these words employed a phraseology that simply cannot be understood literally. We are forced to acknowledge that the cup is the sign of the new testament in Christ's blood and not literally the testament or the blood.

Now, comparing Luke and Paul with Matthew and Mark, we can easily determine whether the latter two should be understood literally or figuratively. To be consistent, we must opt for the symbolic meaning. The wine represents the shed blood of Jesus. Moreover, since “This is my body” is parallel to “This is my blood,” this statement too must also be understood figuratively. This bread represents Jesus’ body."

For example, how do you know that Westboro Baptist Church isn't right. They could be! They read the Bible too! In that case, we are all going to hell.

If THOSE people are there, I think I'll take the alternative..at least you know what you're gettin' there.

Bethany, (6:00 PM)

It makes sense to me that if God allows Satan to test us, then GOD knows we will have to make one of two choices: to follow Satan or to follow God. One could then say our salvation is never guaranteed until the final judgement by God, because God ALLOWS us to fail anytime (using our free will). It would not be a true test without the ability to fail.

Bethany,

I can't handle more than two or three scripture verses at a time, so I'm going to go have some dinner. Have a good night!

It makes sense to me that if God allows Satan to test us, then GOD knows we will have to make one of two choices: to follow Satan or to follow God. One could then say our salvation is never guaranteed until the final judgement by God, because God ALLOWS us to fail anytime (using our free will). It would not be a true test without the ability to fail.

God cannot sin...Jesus was God. Janet, if God/Jesus have not the ability to sin, then why was Jesus tempted, Janet? I love you girls but I do not understand your point of view on this. God allowed Jesus, who could not possibly fail, or sin, to be tempted, tested, by Satan. He could not have ever accepted Satan's offers.

Okay good night, Janet. I hope you have a good dinner! :)

Here is another article which describes problems with interpreting the Lords supper passage literally.... I hope none of it offends any of you. I do not mean it to offend, only to explain why we disagree with you on this issue.

"It Produces A Dilemma

It is stated that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could occur any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as figurative and one as literal.

It Was Figurative in the Old Testament

The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being. It was God’s way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul (Isaiah 55:1-3; Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1).

When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, O Lord God Almighty. 9

Jesus Confirmed It To Be Figurative

Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively and He often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself: "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 10

His Words Were Spiritual

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses an analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world. When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.

Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 11

There is another serious problem for Catholics who insist on a literal interpretation. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In conclusion, it is clear from the Scriptures that the words referring to the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus are to be understood in a spiritual or symbolic sense and not literally. Worshipping a wafer carries the same consequence for Catholics as worshipping a golden calf did for the Israelites. 12"

It is stated that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could occur any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as figurative and one as literal.

This is why we are warned not to partake unworthily...

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

You must believe to partake...or it's a double no-no...we ask that no one come to communion unless they are in agr

eement with her teachings.

The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread. For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in Greek and English:

* Matthew 26:28: Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
* Mark 14:24: Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon. This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.
* Luke 22:20: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
* 1 Corinthians 11:25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing

* that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
* that it was a true and real sacrifice;
* that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.

The present form of the participle ekchynnomenon in conjunction with the present estin establishes the first point. For it is a grammatical rule of New Testament Greek, that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass, "Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch", p. 193, Gottingen, 1896). This rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, as when Christ says earlier (John 14:12): I go (poreuomai) to the father". Alleged exceptions to the rule are not such in reality, as, for instance, Matt., vi, 30: "And if the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven (ballomenon) God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much more you, O ye of little faith?" For in this passage it is a question not of something in the future but of something occurring every day. When the Vulgate translates the Greek participles by the future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancient codices. The accuracy of this exegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke: to poterion . . . ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in the chalice, and therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumed that there is here a grammatical mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the "shedding" with the chalice (poterion), instead of with "blood" (to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as though he were a school boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents.

I've been reading back into the posts I missed and wanted to reply to this one:

"Don't you go to your pastor or a friend when you come upon a scripture that is hard to understand. Isn't Bethany telling me what she believes the scriptures mean? Am I to scrutinize every aspect of Bethanys' or yours for that matter, life to make sure that her interpretation is worth listening to?

No, absolutely not. What you should scrutinize is absolutely not us, because we are flawed human beings. The place we feel should be scrutinized in every aspect is the Bible itself.

You are doing here on Jill's exactly what you are saying a priest would do. You are giving us your interpretation of scripture and asking us to accept it because you have spoken to the Holy Spirit...Why should I listen to you, and not a priest. If the priest says something to me that feels off or not right, I can check it out in the catechism. I have no where to check what you are claiming."

Why is the Bible not a place that you can check to see what we are claiming? I just don't understand why that isn't good enough. It is God's word, after all. All we are claiming is what the Bible says. That is all you'd have to check. Not the words of a human being, but God's own words. I think the Bible is every bit as clear as the catechism, just as understandable.

Also, again, I promise my intent is not to offend....but priests, as you have admitted, can have many different interpretations on things, just as different pastors at church can. You said ,that is a priest does, then it means that he hasn't been doing his homework. But couldn't it also be the case that with those who are not studying the Bible enough, or placing their presuppositions above what the Bible says itself, are not doing their homework? and that they simply need to be a little more engrossed in what the Bible plainly teaches?

There are different religions among protestants for one reason and one reason alone. Some protestants, unfortunately, have decided that they know better than the Bible, and they will twist passages out of their context to make them mean what they want them to mean. (take someone who says that abortion and the Bible agree, for instance.)
They want abortion to be okay, therefore they "read that into" passages like that one in Exodus, when it's not there at all. They don't read the context around it. They aren't interested in reading the context. They want abortion to be okay, so they read it in. Same with many other issues.

See what I mean?

Mk, I read your 6:32 post but I'm not sure if I understand it...

LOL Elizabeth, I'm right there with you..

For example, how do you know that Westboro Baptist Church isn't right. They could be! They read the Bible too!

Not very well. Almost everything the Westboro Church promotes goes against the what the Bible clearly states.

Marykay, you are such a good friend. I would hate if I offended you or hurt you in any way. If I ever do, please let me know and I will stop talking.

Janet wrote earlier today:

It makes sense to me that if God allows Satan to test us, then GOD knows we will have to make one of two choices: to follow Satan or to follow God. One could then say our salvation is never guaranteed until the final judgement by God, because God ALLOWS us to fail anytime (using our free will). It would not be a true test without the ability to fail.

Bethany replied:
God cannot sin...Jesus was God. Janet, if God/Jesus have not the ability to sin, then why was Jesus tempted, Janet? I love you girls but I do not understand your point of view on this. God allowed Jesus, who could not possibly fail, or sin, to be tempted, tested, by Satan. He could not have ever accepted Satan's offers.

Posted by: Bethany at February 10, 2008 6:19 PM

Bethany 6:19 PM:

I was referring to "us" above. I don't include Jesus when I say "US". I know Jesus is God and God cannot sin. Does that clear it up at all? If not, do you know what time my post was? I can't find it. Can you please put post times next to quotes? It's just about impossible to follow without them. Thanks!

(I think I was responding to something Anon wrote, but I don't remember for sure.) B - I love you too!

Bethany,

Never mind about the post time, it was right under my nose!

Wow, sorry all of that is so long.

Oh Bethany, yeah - it's somehing, but bless you for caring about so many people, and for your nature which is sweet and hopeful and willing to put in a lot of effert for your kids.

Doug

Bethany,
You have to go all the way back to Anon 2:57 PM. to make sense of my 6:16 PM post to you. If you follow the posts and you'll see what led up to it.

I hope that helps you make sense of it. (if you're interested).

"Don't you go to your pastor or a friend when you come upon a scripture that is hard to understand.

No, absolutely not.

But you just did! You pasted/posted an explanation given by someone other than yourself?

Why is this different than a priest explaining it?

And we can't agree on what the words "This IS my body means"...so apparently, one of us is not hearing from the Holy Spirit. How shall we determine which of us is being mislead? Without relying on others, that have a better grasp of the language, history etc of the scriptures...

Body and the Blood....I found this explanation on a website, which helps explain why we do believe that the language of the last supper when referring to the body and the blood, are actually figurative, not literal.

Bethany,

Mk, I read your 6:32 post but I'm not sure if I understand it...

It's showing you that the greek words that were used clearly indicate that it was NOT symbolic...

This is why I don't rely on myself. I would have no way of knowing that in Greek a word can mean one thing, but when it gets translated the meaning can change...how could I possibly know which words those are?

There are different religions among protestants for one reason and one reason alone. Some protestants, unfortunately, have decided that they know better than the Bible, and they will twist passages out of their context to make them mean what they want them to mean. (take someone who says that abortion and the Bible agree, for instance.)
They want abortion to be okay, therefore they "read that into" passages like that one in Exodus, when it's not there at all. They don't read the context around it. They aren't interested in reading the context. They want abortion to be okay, so they read it in. Same with many other issues.
*
See what I mean?

I do indeed see what you mean...and it only confirms my assertion...how does one know that their interpretation is not being done to fit a presupposed notion.

I believe that this is exactly what is being done in the protestant churches. People are reading what they want to read. Take the passages about the body and blood.

The words are simple. This is my body. This is my blood. Take and eat..

Yet, protestants don't believe in the true presence so they interpret these words to back up their stance...But they have to do some pretty fancy footwork because as I have shown, the greek clearly means that this is not symbolic language.

So the question remains, why is Bethany, or Anon's interpretation more right than theologians and scholars that actually know the language, have studied the history, or, as in the case of the early fathers, had first or second hand knowledge of what actually took place?

Why, in one of the most important scenes in the bible, would God use symbols? The last supper is HUGE...It's one of the rare passages that all 4 Gospel writers includes...why? Because it is the beginning of the sacrifice. It is the ritual that will keep Jesus here on earth in the flesh...this is the moment that he "chooses"/"volunteers" Offers Himself up...this is the moment where He sacrifices himself. Before he even gets to the cross...

Bethany,

I adore you and it would take a lot more than a difference of opinion to change that...have no fear!

I must say however, that if you ever did accept the idea of the "True Presence" we'd have to drag you kicking and screaming out of the church.

I mean, just for a minute, imagine that what we are claiming is true. That Jesus was truly, physically present, in the flesh on the altar of every Catholic Church in the world. Knowing you and your love for Jesus, I'm afraid your family would have to tie you up to get you to leave Him and come home...lol.

mk 6:36 AM,

"Why, in one of the most important scenes in the bible, would God use symbols? The last supper is HUGE...It's one of the rare passages that all 4 Gospel writers includes...why? Because it is the beginning of the sacrifice. It is the ritual that will keep Jesus here on earth in the flesh...this is the moment that he "chooses"/"volunteers" Offers Himself up...this is the moment where He sacrifices himself. Before he even gets to the cross..."

Amen!

The other post at 6:32 AM is all "Greek" to me. - I'm going to have to trust the Church fathers on that one.

Way to go Doug.
The "official line" of Catholics is not allowing Jesus to become a God that allows the killing of his creation through abortion. Protestants, and those silly silent Quakers can worship a Jesus that allows the killing of his creation in the womb through the decision known as abortion.
Protestants made Jesus into a God that wants(and it is all based on desire Doug) his creation dead.

I like that Doug, look at the Catholics not the Protestants "official line." Scratch a failed Protestant, turned atheist, and they always return to defending their religion by bringing up some failed Catholics. A non-failed Protestant, can kill the Creation of Jesus, a fetus, and go home and justify that killing by knowing Jesus allows the killing of his most defenseless being he allowed to be created in the womb of a women. Which makes Jesus a women hater also. Being born into bigotry towards Catholics was the first thing you learned Doug through your parents religion.
Which is why your a atheist today when you began to understand the your mother and father simply were incapable of logic and reason when it came to religious matters.
On the one hand, they could make God allow his followers to kill his creation in the womb through bible interpretation, and the next day make Jesus into something holy and kind that counted the hairs on the head of the aborted baby and is aware of when a "sparrow falls to the ground". God has no compassion for humans but is keeping a eternal eye out for a sparrow.
Which is why you turned out the way you did Doug.
A Malthusian atheist with a streak of pessimism, principled in the idiot God your parents worshipped.
Killing is a decision that Jesus allows, so why not Doug, and his will to kill that piece of meat a women is carrying in a over crowded world.
Oh, that's right Doug plays the pirate and gets a women to abort once Doug has her on board your pirate ship flying the flag of choice, that flips over and is the skull and cross bones of death.
Hmm, the devil's advocate, or is that the Jesus advocate that allows the murder of his souls and flesh in the womb of the mother.
Fact is Doug, with a family of religious nutz who worshipped a God they made into whatever they desired, no wonder you rejected that silliness and ended up a atheist who allows women to murder what is nothing more then a piece of human flesh.
They must be proud of ya, being able to reject their peasant culture and strike out as boldly as Spock in your quest to get as far away from them as possible. And you have.

mk: 7:03 AM,

"That Jesus (is) truly, physically present, in the flesh on the altar of every Catholic Church in the world."

It's awe-inspiring; a beautiful thing!

oops...
On my earlier post today(7:27), I should have said 6:32 PM (not AM).

It's early, sorry....

He's not be REoffered now either. We are being transferred back in time and taking part in the original offering...we transcend time and space...

Posted by: mk at February 10, 2008 5:26 PM

OK, so how, if you're going back in time, is Jesus really in your church's building NOW, if the building wasn't built at the original offering?

The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215. (That’s 1,215 years AFTER Christ)

The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius in the year 1220.

The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance in the year 1414.

John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers shall worship the Father in SPIRIT and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in SPIRIT and in truth.

On another note, I don’t think that Jesus would ever step foot into a Catholic church. God doesn’t approve of idols, and the Catholic church is filled with them.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Exodus 20:4-5 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

I know, you guys SAY that you don’t worship Mary, but you do bow down to her statues (i.e., graven images). I can show you 100’s of pictures of Catholics around the world doing such things (including the Pope).

So, I’m sorry, MK. Although I thank you for your prayers, there are so many things that the church does that God strictly forbids that the Catholic church practices. Many have pagan origins, and you guys fell hook, line & sinker for the lies. I’m sorry. I’d rather be dead than be Catholic.

Anon 9:31 AM,

Will you consider this explanation? (from catholic-jhb.org) -

Reminding us of heavenly beings

When Catholics go on knee before a statue of a saint, or the cross of Christ, it is out of respect, as one would do in the presence of one of authority , in the same way as before a judge or magistrate in a court of law. The injunction is not to adore or serve such persons as gods. We show respect by making representations in stone for historical figures such as Nelson Mandela or Queen Victoria. No one would accuse us of idolatry in these cases, even if we bowed slightly in their direction, out of respect. When a pastor goes down on his knees, Bible in hand, no Catholic would accuse him of adoring the Bible but rather of respect, and veneration regarding God's written Word. We keep photographs in our homes of loved ones, such as a deceased grandmother or father, and others, and even of living personalities whom we admire. They put us in mind of the prototype, just as statues of the Saints, Mary and Christ do. We are thereby put in mind of heavenly things.
If photography had been discovered when Jesus walked the earth, would he have forbidden us to take snapshots of him? Of course not, and these are graven images. Such photographs might even have been used by God in later years to be applied to the sick for healing, as with the aprons and handkerchiefs in Mk 5:25-34, and Acts 19:11-12.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 11, 2008 9:31 AM:

The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215. (That’s 1,215 years AFTER Christ)

The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius in the year 1220.

The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance in the year 1414.

John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers shall worship the Father in SPIRIT and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in SPIRIT and in truth.

On another note, I don’t think that Jesus would ever step foot into a Catholic church. God doesn’t approve of idols, and the Catholic church is filled with them.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Exodus 20:4-5 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

I know, you guys SAY that you don’t worship Mary, but you do bow down to her statues (i.e., graven images). I can show you 100’s of pictures of Catholics around the world doing such things (including the Pope).

So, I’m sorry, MK. Although I thank you for your prayers, there are so many things that the church does that God strictly forbids that the Catholic church practices. Many have pagan origins, and you guys fell hook, line & sinker for the lies.
I’m sorry. I’d rather be dead than be Catholic.

Anon: It's hard to respond after your last statement, but, if you are not interested, maybe there are others who might benefit from the following. These differences are not new to us. The SAME points have been debated by P's and C's for centuries, and THE ANSWERS WILL ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME. These are not going to be deal-breakers in converting Catholics to Protestantism (at least not for me!).

There are MANY EX-PROTESTANT MINISTERS/PRIESTS who have CONVERTED to Catholicism and have written their conversion stories. They explain how they reconciled the Catholic Church's teachings with their own to enter into the fullness of the Catholic Church.

Also, EWTN (Eternal Word TV Network), Catholic television, has a program hosted by an ex-Protestant who talks to others like him about their conversions (called Coming Home, I think). Relevant Radio all kinds of Christian programming. Very educational and inspiring, too.

I guess one can justify anything they do. I think theives justify their thefts, too.

I just pray that you guys are ABSOLUTELY SURE that God will not have a problem with this, even though He said He does:

Again,

Exodus 20:4-5 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=M0&Dato=20080113&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=113006&Ref=PH

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080116/COMMUNITIES/801160313/1052

You really don't think that God has a problem with these? I have many, many more if you'd like to see them.

Anon,11:08,

If you really want to understand this-

THIS is important -

YOU ARE QUOTING THE OLD TESTAMENT. In the historical context (It's critical to take it in the right context.), GOD is talking about images that were worshipped THEN, BEFORE THE INCARNATION of CHRIST, not after

So don't you think God is smart enough to know that when I kneel before a statue of our Blessed Mother that I am honoring her, not worshipping a big lump of resin or marble (or whatever)! ? That goes for all statues, pictures, etc...The bible says God is omniscient, all knowing. He KNOWS!!

The website I referenced above (catholic-jhb.org) gives definitions more historical context, etc...

Anon,

Since this is a Pro-Life site, I'd prefer to curtail my discussion of religious differences. I think it takes away from the purpose of the site, which is to PROMOTE LIFE. We have a lot to agree on there. God bless you.

Janet,
Where do you think the Roman Catholics got that from? PAGAN WORSHIP. Remember, the Romans had to blend the religions together to appease the people back then.

But Janet, it's part of the ten commandments which you guys say you obey. So you're saying that the things that are in the old testament don't matter to Catholics?

I see, so it was written in the old testament, and that doesn't apply to us at all anymore. We can all go ahead and bow down or worship anything we want to?

God is smart enough to know the difference. He requires us to ONLY honor HIM, Only worship HIM. You obviously do not know the meaning of bowing and worshipping or idols for that matter.

The Didache(c. 90 A.D.)

But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)

On the Lord's Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: "In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am Great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles." (14:1-2)

The phrase transubstantiation may not have been around since the beginning but the belief in the true presence has.

Adoration is a separate practice from receiving the Eucharist. In Adoration, Jesus is exposed on the altar in a "Monstance" and we come together to worship and adore Him...it is this practice that Honorius instituted...not the practice of receiving the Eucharist at mass.

The true presence was an accepted belief by virtually EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN until the 1500s.

It amazes me that you can simply dismiss 1500 years of belief as garbage because you personally have read the bible and believe that the Holy Spirit has spoken to you. Isn't it possible, just possible, that perhaps, just perhaps, it is you and not the Catholic Church that has gotten it wrong?

Even when you say point out why you dislike the church so much, you have gotten almost every point incorrect. If this is how you are reading the bible, then maybe you are getting that incorrect also.

You claim we worship statues and Mary and Saints and without backing up your claim, you refuse to hear our explanations preferring instead to cling to your own misconceptions.

You claim that the sacrifice of the mass began with Pope Honorius because you read the word adoration, but you were wrong.

I don't mean to sound harsh, cuz I'm not angry or anything, just kind of confused by the way you make all sorts of assumptions about the Church based on erroneous information.

It makes me wonder about your take on scripture. Are you basing it on other false premises?

I urge you to "listen" to what we are telling you. When we say that we don't worship saints or Mary, hear what we are saying instead of stubbornly believing that you know what we are doing and you don't...you have been wrong before.

I'm sorry that you can't see past your prejudices against the church to hear what she really teaches. This makes me sad. It is one thing to understand something and reject it and an entirely different thing to reject something because you don't understand it.

mk, Janet & Bobby,
I try to understand, I really do. I just can't, though. I'm sorry. However, I do thank each and every one of you for such a nice, civilized conversation. I had many questions, and all of you were so nice in answering them for me. Please understand, though, as I FINALLY have, that our beliefs are very different. One day we'll all find out.

Again, thank you so much, and believe it or not, I don't think I have any more questions. I think I'll take Janet's advice and stick to pro-life conversations going forward.

God bless each & every one of you.

God love you Anon. I appreciate the convo, though I had to drop out two days ago. And indeed, we will know someday, and I pray that we'll find out together, and laugh about it together. Keep me in your prayers, I'll keep you in mine, and we'll both submit ourselves to Jesus, the way the truth and the life.

Amen to that, brother in Christ!

yllas: Protestants made Jesus into a God that wants(and it is all based on desire Doug) his creation dead.

No. God is a theoretical construct but logically, if there is an all-knowing god, then that god knows who is going to continue pregnancies and who is going to end them. The "wanting" of the god is a question, but if "all-knowing" applies then that future is fixed.
......

Being born into bigotry towards Catholics was the first thing you learned..

Good grief, that's silly. You are so hung up on this Catholic-bashing thing in your head. You must be awfully guilty about something, and seeing the confirmation of what is in your mind within what you project onto other people.
......

A Malthusian atheist with a streak of pessimism, principled in the idiot God your parents worshipped.

My parents would likely pity you, there. With good reason, I would say.
......

yllas, the bottom line is that in the real world things happen, and while there are people who want to see things only "one way," that does not always work for others, regardless of their prior postion. I figure that you know this, but hate the fact, just as you appear to hate so many things.

Doug