[Meek and Humble]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Fact remains the Catholic church is the oldest Christian denomination in the world, and the popes have a rightful place in scripture for interpretation and leadership - Matthew 16:18.

No. My church is the oldest Christian denomination in the world, and the popes have no rightful place at all, especially considering Jesus gave the same power of Matthew 16 to ALL the Apostles

Matthew 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

This sets off a long sermon by Our Lord to the Twelve, where he also says...

Matthew 18: 18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

See, that's the same power He bestowed on Peter, in fact, He bestowed on all of them. The entire sermon of Matthew 18, in fact, contradicts the idea that Peter is in anyway above the others. He also gave them all the power in John 20:23.

Hmmm interesting "source" shall we say.

The source may be anti-Catholic, but the quotes are accurate. Here, I'll so you the same quotes from secular sources:

Quote 1. Pope Benedict wrote this in Inter Soldalica, March 22, 1918, on page 181. It is quoted and cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV#Mariology

Quote 2. Pope Pius X wrote this in Encyclical: Ad Diem Illum. It is quote on this CATHOLIC website: http://catholicexchange.com/2007/05/23/97556/

Quote 3. Pope Leo XII wrote this in Encyclical : Octobri Mense.It is even quoted in this CATHOLIC website: http://catholicexchange.com/2007/05/23/97556/

Quote 4. The Catechism does say that, In Part One, Section Two, Chapter 3, Article Nine, Paragraph Six. You can read it here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#963

Quote 5. Vatican II did say that. It is even affirmed as being a true quote on this CATHOLIC website: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmes...&Pgnu=1&recnu=

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Fact remains the Catholic church is the oldest Christian denomination in the world, and the popes have a rightful place in scripture for interpretation and leadership - Matthew 16:18.

Tell me what that verse has to do with the succession of the popes, as opposed to Peter himself.

We catholics do not contradict that teaching. You are misinformed my friend.

Then explain this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that the Eucharist is a sacrifice and is the same sacrifice as Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. How is it not a contradiction to state that a sacrifice that was done once for all is done during every Mass?

Hmmm interesting "source" shall we say.

But can you refute it?

[The Cantabrian]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Well, mine has indeed been around the longest.

But suppose it's not. The Jews had an oral law. Were they following it perfectly when Jesus returned 1000 years after Moses? Or did Jesus condemn them for obeying the traditions of men?

And, if we are going by dates, they are plenty of pagan religions that are older than yours and have existed continually. Does that mean Hinduism is the one true faith?

Fact remains the Catholic church is the oldest Christian denomination in the world, and the popes have a rightful place in scripture for interpretation and leadership - Matthew 16:18.

How about the one that doesn't contradict what the Bible says about Our Lord's one-time sacrifice?

We catholics do not contradict that teaching. You are misinformed my friend.

Well when you look at it all Constantine did was take the Roman paganism and slap Christian names on it. Hence Mary worship is no more than worship of Juno with a name change. Both are even referred to as "Queen of Heaven"

Don't believe me? Here's some quotes from your own Popes....

http://www.craom.net/roman-catholic-mary-worship.htm

Hmmm interesting "source" shall we say.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Depends on how you count tradition.
The Catholic church as we know it only dates from the Constantine the Great in 313AD. However the Catholics can rightfully claim as Pontifex Maximus (Chief bridge inspector of Rome and pagan high priest) that their tradition goes back at lest 387 years before Christ! Which seems rather appropriate for the Catholics to claim to trump Jesus.

Well you Catholics got us there, we only can trace ourselves back to Christ.

Well when you look at it all Constantine did was take the Roman paganism and slap Christian names on it. Hence Mary worship is no more than worship of Juno with a name change. Both are even referred to as "Queen of Heaven"

Don't believe me? Here's some quotes from your own Popes....

http://www.craom.net/roman-catholic-mary-worship.htm

1. Pope Benedict XV, in 1918 – “Mary suffered with Christ and nearly died with Him when He died, thus she may rightly be said to have redeemed the human race with Christ.”


2. Pope Pius XI, in 1923 – “The virgin of sorrows shared the work of redemption with Jesus Christ.”


3. Pope Leo XIII, in 1891 – “No one can approach Christ except through His mother.”


4. The Catechism, in the Sunday Missal (Catholic Catechism) says, “My salvation depends on Mary’s mediation and union with Christ, because of her exalted position as Mediatrix of all grace.”


5. Vatican II, said, “Mary’s intercession continues to win for us the gift of eternal salvation.”

[Meek and Humble]

Re: What does this verse mean?

How about the one that has been around the longest. Like 2000 years?

Well, mine has indeed been around the longest.

But suppose it's not. The Jews had an oral law. Were they following it perfectly when Jesus returned 1000 years after Moses? Or did Jesus condemn them for obeying the traditions of men?

And, if we are going by dates, they are plenty of pagan religions that are older than yours and have existed continually. Does that mean Hinduism is the one true faith?

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: What does this verse mean?

How about the one that has been around the longest. Like 2000 years?

How about the one that doesn't contradict what the Bible says about Our Lord's one-time sacrifice?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: What does this verse mean?

How about the one that has been around the longest. Like 2000 years?

Depends on how you count tradition.
The Catholic church as we know it only dates from the Constantine the Great in 313AD. However the Catholics can rightfully claim as Pontifex Maximus (Chief bridge inspector of Rome and pagan high priest) that their tradition goes back at lest 387 years before Christ! Which seems rather appropriate for the Catholics to claim to trump Jesus.

Well you Catholics got us there, we only can trace ourselves back to Christ.

[Sister Christina]

Re: What does this verse mean?

How about the one that has been around the longest. Like 2000 years?

H.C. Andersen was quite a sinner but he did write one true story in his lifespan. Have you ever read the story: It's Quite True!

It's a story about how one little incident can turn into a world disaster by being brought on orally.

No need to rub it in further, right?

[The Cantabrian]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Well, my oral tradition contradicts yours. Now what do we do

How about the one that has been around the longest. Like 2000 years?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Respectfully, I think you have missed the point. Sometimes Jesus referred to bread in a symbolic sense, but at other times he spoke in a literal sense. This is why it is so important to have oral tradition to give guidance on such matters.

Well, my oral tradition contradicts yours. Now what do we do

[The Cantabrian]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Respectfully, I think you have missed the point. Sometimes Jesus referred to bread in a symbolic sense, but at other times he spoke in a literal sense. This is why it is so important to have oral tradition to give guidance on such matters.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: What does this verse mean?

I think the reason protestants misinterpret these verses is because they have failed to see the wood for the trees. What you should be focusing on is not the idea of cannibalism, but the actual presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. You cannot say that Christ was being symbolic in this passage as St. Paul recognizes it as literal in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

But I think this whole debate goes to show why many protestants are wrong to insist that the Bible alone is sufficient and there is no need for interpretation. We are claiming that a passage should be read literally, you guys say it should be read symbolically. The very fact that we are having this debate shows that there is such a need, and who shall provide such interpretation if not centuries of oral tradition of the church??

Nonsense. Even in the times of Apostles there were already those spreading false doctrines, the Paul and the other epistles writers warn the true Christians against them. Jesus also says that those who will be saved will be a small number, so it's doubtful the world's largest church is the one telling the truth. Satan, after all, is the lord of the earth until Jesus' return. The Bible tells us that almost the entire world will be following a false Christ. The epistle writers tell us again and again the way to avoid false doctrines is to study the SCRIPTURES and see if their words match up.

Now, as for your silly claim about us not seeing "the woods for the trees." Why are you not seeing what Jesus plainly says because your church teaches you otherwise?

Matthew 4:4J esus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

Matthew 15:26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Matthew 16: 5When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread."
8Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.


John 6:35 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. (I think we can agree Jesus is not speaking of literal hunger and thirst here?)


John 6:50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. (And Jesus isn't saying people who take communion will never literally die?)

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: What does this verse mean?

In the account in Matthew 26 he repeats...

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

and then they go straight into the garden to pray. the VERY NEXT DAY Jesus is crucified.


yes i know it does sound crazy, but this is God we are talking about here. Who clearly says in the Scriptures "this is my body." Does this sound any more crazy than these miracles? Jesus raising from the Dead, Moses turning the river Nile into blood, Moses splitting the red sea. Noah and the flood, Abraham wife giving birth when Barren. Jesus miracle birth.

Is it possible that this could also be another miracle?

Many miracles are recounted in the Bible. Why is it not recorded, "And the disciples looked upon the heel of the loaf with astonishment, seeing it become as the raw, bloody heel of Jesus."

Oh, because it was symbolic!

[The Cantabrian]

Re: What does this verse mean?

I think the reason protestants misinterpret these verses is because they have failed to see the wood for the trees. What you should be focusing on is not the idea of cannibalism, but the actual presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. You cannot say that Christ was being symbolic in this passage as St. Paul recognizes it as literal in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

But I think this whole debate goes to show why many protestants are wrong to insist that the Bible alone is sufficient and there is no need for interpretation. We are claiming that a passage should be read literally, you guys say it should be read symbolically. The very fact that we are having this debate shows that there is such a need, and who shall provide such interpretation if not centuries of oral tradition of the church??

[Meek and Humble]

Re: What does this verse mean?

Even the Jews questioned him and left because they believed him to be that serious. Then asking his disciples if they were going to leave to.

Hey, way to miss the whole point of the story! The only people who took Jesus' words literally were the idiotic Jews who rejected Him and left. Jesus' true disciples were not dumb enough to think He was being literal.

If it were symbolic surely the Jews would have been like...nah hes just being symbolic, he doesn't mean it literally.

Right, because the Jews always understood Jesus' words so well, right?

Also he is refering how to receive the reward of eternal life, i mean he repeatedly says "unless you eat my body and drink my blood" "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." Clearly emphasizing the point. If he just mean symbolically he's making it pretty confusing.

What is really confusing would be Jesus telling them they needed to eat His flesh, long before He instituted the "Eucharist" as you claim. Now, since when was taking the Lord's Supper the manner of gaining eternal life? You quote John chapter 6, now why don't you read on a little ahead in that chapter?

John 6:63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.


What's this? The flesh counts for nothing! What gives life is the spirit, and Jesus' words are the spirit! What does this mean? It's not eating "flesh" that will save you, it's believing in Jesus. His earlier words were SYMBOLIC.



John 5: 24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.


See, no requirement of having to literally eat flesh here.