Catholicism Masterpost

Even after reading the Catechism I'm still hung up on the whole infallibility thing since the justification for it is self-referential. "We the Magisterium are infallible because we have made an infallible declaration of our infallibility." But then as we've seen they can say and do things that run directly contrary to previously infallible doctrinal declarations.

But this is only a secondary concern to the inclusion of things like "The Human Communion" and other concepts of dubious spiritual justification. It seems like a blasphemous attempt to elevate corrupt human nature to a position within the Trinity and purposefully blurs the subordinate relationship that mankind has with God. It is claimed that these concepts are a reflection of man made in God's image but it totally fails to emphasize the separations between the parts of the Trinity, and would render mankind as an almost soylent spiritual mash. The implications of this chapter alone are, to me, absolutely horrific, and enough on their own to practically fill a book with my objections to them. Could a Catholic familiar with this elaborate further?

It's about faith in the Holy Spirit. In matters of faith, we're supposed to believe that the promises to the Church are still valid and real (having faith, in a word).

I'm a lapsed catholic, and even recognizing my disagreements with the "political church", I also have to recognize that it is the only true one.

But how can there be such a distinction as the "political church" when this very conceptualization violates parts of the doctrine they claim to hold? And what of the separation between the Magesterium and the Church Militant or the Church Militant and the unbeliever? Does this not do the same when tested against doctrine of promoting oneness of spirit? The entire concept seems to be at odds with itself.

Mark 7
7 Then came together unto him the Catholics, and certain of the Orthodox, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples baptize, that is to say, with immersion, they found fault.

3 For the Catholics, and all the Orthodox, baptize by sprinkling and if babies, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they sprinkle they baptize not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Catholics and Orthodox asked Pastor Jim, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but only baptize with full imersion?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the baptizing of babies: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Paul said, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, Not given to wine, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

11 But ye say, If a man marries they cannot be a bishop, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to marry;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Catholics BTFO

Attached: C75D42B6-B8C7-41FF-A4B3-8E19CA096C36.jpeg (564x960 55.67 KB, 85.11K)

Political in the sense of human development. Man made forms created by 2000 years of history. Not necessarily perfect, but doctrinally sound. At the core it's still the one founded by Himself.

The Church Militant is a development based in the self defense principia (extracted from the magisterium). It's not a separation but a logical development along the centuries of pressure of internal and external enemies.

Does it nullifies the commandment of the Lord? Even with errors I say no.

I can safely say that, having reached the point of belief after years of studying philosophy and theology, I have never seen a larger theological dumpster fire than that of the Protestant churches. Sola Scriptura is perhaps the most anti-scriptural and self defeating concept you have ever produced.

I didn't mean Church Militant as actual military combatants or crusaders, but as the visible flesh and blood body of the Church. I suppose its my own fault for using a loaded term.

Sola scriptura is nothing other than having God as the authority over the Church and not men. To reject it is to reject Christian religion and divine revelation in favor of human philosophy and the rudiments of the world.

Perhaps the key to this wpuld be the concept of deposit of faith - that the process of God's public revelation of His truth ended together with the death of the last Apostle, and since that time no new truths can be added to this set of truths; it can only be preserved. The role of dogmatic statements isn't to give the faithful new revealed truths to believe in, because this stopped happening 1900 years ago. It's only to affirm what was already (since the Apostolic times) universally believed to have been revealed by God.

This includes the infallibility of the Church founded by Christ (one of its most important aspects, as one of the Church's most important roles is to protect the faith from falsehoods and history that constantly appear throughout history and which would doubtlessly swallow down the correct faith if it wasn't actively protected by God) and protected by Him in its pronouncements - a truth always and universally believed.

Attached: Albrecht_Dürer_003.jpg (4234x4658, 7.23M)

Your particular error consists in that you assume that the Bible is the only way God has the authority over the Church, and that He couldn't use additional means of exercising this authority.

This is a very big assumption, and you need to prove it before you can use it as a premise in your argument.

Of course He could, and has done so at many times. It wasn't the bible when prophets spoke. But it was divine revelation, the word of God. In this age, the bible is the only direct word of God and therefore the supreme and all-correcting epistemic authority. Any other source of authority, even one which claims to deliver divine revelation, must be considered at best a secondary authority subject to the tribunal of scripture. Anything which claims equal or greater authority with scripture is a blasphemous usurpation of divine authority, and seeks to avoid God's tribunal.

To clarify, they must be secondary because rather than coming to us straight from God (and thus being a sure word), they arrive through a human channel wherein they may be tainted.

Thank God then that us IFB aren't protestant

The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. "…you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church…" In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

Please see

Take paper money to a country in which this use of paper money is not known, and everyone will laugh at your subjective representation. Go with your gods to a country in which other gods are worshipped, and you will be shown that you are the victim of fancies and abstractions. And rightly. Anyone who had brought a migrant god to the ancient Greeks, would have found the proof of the non-existence of this god, because it did not exist for the Greeks. What is the case in a certain country for certain foreign gods, takes place for god in general in the country of reason: it is an area in which his existence ceases

I know you claim to be Reformed, but I would argue that is a dubious claim at best.

this is your mind on inferior non-gendered languages, ladies and gentlmen>>644550
I think this is a problem with anglos due to their inferior language not having genders for nouns.
Jesus couldn't use "petros" again in the second instance because it would have basically been like calling his beloved apostle "Jessica". We can only imagine how much trouble that would have caused in the future, especially with all the transexual degeneration going on in our times.
Since "petra"(female gender) is the standard word for rock, and he used that standard word as the inspiration to give him his name, it is normal that his name would just be a male version of that female standard word. When he then speaks of "rock" as a general object and not as the personal name that he just invented, of course he uses the feminine petra again, because that is how you pronounce the word rock in greek, with a female gender. The correlation between petros and petra is nonetheless undeniable and happens literally in the same sentence; to deny it is pretty much to deny the obvious.
There's also the fact that in Koine greek "small rock" is "lithos", but you don't really need to get that far in apologetics because you only need to look at the words of the Bible to realise Catholics are right.

Wow. Imagine being so dumb you don't know literally the opposite happened with the Christian God when Greeks came into contact with it. But then again I can't expect a double-digit IQ from Karl Marx

Where is this new ark idea? Iraneus uses new creation, but I've never heard of new ark

Attached: very happy.webm (1280x720, 129.33K)

I beg you, keep at least this great thread free from anime filth.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:23-25

For someone who spends so much time belittling others' reading comprehension, you have yet to explain the assertion that Jesus Christ referred to Peter twice in the same sentence by two different names, instead of just saying "and upon thee I will build my church" if that is what he meant to say.

It is like if I said "You are John and on this Jonny I will build my church." That isn't a grammatically correct way to talk to and about a single person. Not only that, but from this structure, we can see the reason for starting the sentence by saying "Thou art Peter" is to differentiate him from the rock he is going to speak about— which is himself—— not to refer to the same subject in third person by different names in the same sentence.

good thread; keep up the good fight.

I agree

Guys guy guys, remember Jesus and his apostles spoke Aramaic and that Jesus renamed the apostle Simon "Kepha" which is translated into Greek as "Petros". In other words, he didn't call him "Petros", he called his "Kepha" so in Matthew it would have been "You are Kepha and upon this kepha…" Further, as pointed out earlier, the difference in meaning between "petros" and "petra" does not exist in Koine Greek, only in Attic Greek.

As for those saying Jesus was referring to someone other than Peter when he said "upon this rock", this is evidently incorrect since in the previous verse Jesus refers to Simon using his original name "Blessed are you Simon…", and then in the following verse calls him by his new name "Kepha" or "Peter" so as to finally explain why he changed his name to mean "rock" since he is the rock.

I wouldn't exactly call it new. Mary has been described as the new ark since the early Church.

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: "Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

You still make the same assumption, it's still assumption because you still haven't proved it.

Why couldn't God exercise His authority today by additionally e.g. protecting a society He founded from erring in matters of faith? Why must the Bible be the single means of exercising His authority today?

Protecting a person from his errors removes his free will.

Because then the bible has no real authority at all.
Whatever the church tells you a bible passage means, is "the correct interpretation". You can also just add any new doctrine even if there is not even a verse in the bible that could be stretched to justify it.
Effectively, you might as well have no bible at all and only rely on the Catholic church.

Go ahead and re-read my posts and then ask yourself if those questions are relevant.

It doesn't remove free will anymore than God punishing sinners being after death does. Infallibility doesn't mean that the pope has some private contact with God and positively knows what is true, or that his private thoughts and reasoning can't stray into heresy. It only means that if he tries to officially, publicly proclaim a heresy, God will stop him in whatever way He chooses to do it.

In your examples you implicitly speak of the Church as a merely human society, without special Divine protection in its judgements, instead of for the sake of the argument assuming it has such protection and therefore replying to the example from my argument. (Remember, we aren't debating whether the Catholic Church has such protection, only whether Sola Scriptura is true; treat this Divinely protected Church as a purely hypothetical example.) You cannot simply assume it doesn't and then use what would follow if it didn't as a proof it doesn't, because then you would be leaving alone the case where the Church actually has such protection.

Can anyone refute this guy's argument?

Attached: some muslim on leddit.png (2291x1105, 321.41K)

I am still watching the video mentioned.

So, to sum up: if you want to argue for Sola Scriptura, reply to my hypothetical example which I gave in the previous post, instead of avoiding replying to it and instead replying to an example I didn't give you.

No, this is wrong. I'm not talking about the consequences of error, I'm talking about the prevention of error.

Don't be naive, we are talking about epistemology.
We must consider the nature of the authority in comparing the scale of the authority. God is the author of divine revelation, therefore it carries the authority of God. But who is the author of the word of the pope? If the pope's pronouncements are equal to God's word, they must come from God. God cannot admit an equal, He alone has the power to define reality. Why shouldn't we test this human authority by what God has revealed? Why must we believe this mere man is right even when God says he is wrong? The bible came from God, but this light from the very creator of all things shouldn't be considered the standard and measure of all truth?

I'd like to remind you you still haven't interacted with my argumentation in

Perhaps I will use a better analogy: God flooding the Egyptian army in the Book of Exodus. The Egyptians decided to kill the Israelites, and God didn't prevent this choice. He only prevented them from carrying out this choice.

Similarly, in the case of papal infallibility, if the pope tries to do something wrong - proclaim heresy as revealed truth - he can make this choice, he has free will. God will only prevent him from carrying out this choice.

I don't think that's how it works, do you have some primary sources to quote?

It's tiresome but sure
As Paul says in Hebrew 1, God gradually revealed himself and the final revelation came through his Son - Trinity included. But there still are statements like this: "I called upon the Lord, the father of my Lord" and "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool."
Literally who. He isn't even Catholic.
Fact that essence of God is not essence of man is fundamental for Catholic view of incarnation.
Kénōsis and…
…Monarchy of the Father

True, and no Catholic faithful to his faith would disagree.

The pope. He doesn't have any special "hotline to God", if he says something, these are just his own words.

Perhaps. I don't know (but I seriously doubt whether this is a Catholic belief, considering the special and unique source of God's revelation - which has already ended, see ) whether such proclamations are equal to God's revelation. But if they are (as is the Catholic belief) protected by God (in the sense that He wouldn't let the pope to say it if it wasn't true), then whether they are equal or not to God's revelation, they still must necessarily be true (if they weren't, then God either wouldn't protect them - but we don't consider this case - or He would protect them, but couldn't prevent them from appearing, which denies God's omnipotence.) and still are an exercise of God's authority, because it's His actions and care that make them reliable (if He didn't actively protect the Church, the pope could then proclaim a heresy and wouldn't be stopped by anyone; and in that case, obviously such proclamations wouldn't be as reliable as when protected by God.)

You can if you want to, perhaps it will be better for your faith. But because God has revealed that He will protect him from proclaiming heresy, when we hear him proclaiming something, we can be sure that we can trust it (because God revealed it to us that this man won't proclaim something untrue; because I trust God and believe what he revealed.)

If God is right, then this man won't be wrong (at least when he officially and publicly proclaims something; he can obviously say something untrue when he isn't speaking about faith or morals, or in private, etc.). It's impossible because God in His omnipotence protects him.

It should, but it doesn't follow from this that it alone. True, the Bible is infallibly true; it doesn't follow however that only the Bible is infallibly true.

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that every other source of information is secondary because it could be tainted by humans misinterpreting God's word, right? In that case, the problem of tainting would disappear if omnipotent and infallible God actively protected such fallible human channels from tainting the truth. See:

Well if it comes from God it is divine revelation, isn't it?
Well let me help you: If they are equal, the pope is equal to God.
This is my point. Practically speaking, the pope is made equal (indeed, superior) with God. They must necessarily be true, so we can't allow scripture to determine whether they are true or not. It enables the pope to avoid the tribunal of scripture and contradict it at will. Since Roman Catholics annex this divine attribute to the pope, how can they obey Jesus' command not to nullify the word of God for traditions of men?
You have already pointed out you do not believe there is any more revelation, and I have pointed out for something to be from God it is divine revelation. There is only one other way papal pronouncements can be an exercise of God's authority, and that is if the pope is God. It does not sound so much like you feel the pope's statements are mere human opinions that happen to be protected from error by God, and therefore could safely be believed, but that these things absolutely must be believed because the pope has revealed them, being naturally incapable of error. I see a clear difference between Catholic epistemology in theory and Catholic epistemology in practice. Theoretically, God's actions should be passive, just keeping the pope from screwing up, meaning his words would certainly be true, but also safely ignored. But practically, God's actions are active, filling the pope with infallibility instead of ensuring consistent inerrancy, using him as a means of revelation, so that to reject the pope would be an act of rebellion, a sin. If these papal pronouncements are not revelatory, are they not merely human?
So I can refuse to be subject to the Roman pontiff?
If the pope and scripture seem to contradict, which do you believe, your interpretation of scripture or your interpretation of the pope?
So should it not also measure papal claims? If it should be the measure of truth, can we as Christians rightly believe anything without measuring its consistency with divine truth?
I'm not talking about infallibility, I am talking about epistemic hierarchy. See how I defined sola scriptura

No. All other sources must be secondary because all created things are inferior to God and to God alone do we owe unconditional obedience. Tradition which claims to have a divine fountainhead are no different, since they are at the absolute best secondhand instead of direct divine revelation.
See above.

God declares something as truth to be universally believed = God's revelation

Man repeats a previously revealed truth, by God's previous revelation we know we can trust it to be such = not God's revelation

How? He is merely repeating what God revealed, and we can trust that he is infallible in this only because God revealed it to be so.

Why would such a tribunal be mandatory when God revealed that He will protect the pope's declarations? Obviously, you can use Scripture to check whether his words are correct, and maybe your faith will even grow stronger because of this. After all the Bible is infallible God's word. But if God revealed that the pope ia infallible, I don't see why one would need to check everything he says in the Bible.

He can't, because then it wouldn't be infallibility.

Which Divine attribute?

There is a huge difference between men inventing new doctrines and teaching that one should obey them as if they were Divine in origin, and men only repeating God's revealed doctrines (protected from error in this, true, but only repeating what was already revealed.)

I specifically explained how it can be exercise of God's authority without making the pope God. You simply assert that it's not impossible, but without explaining why or refuting what I said.

From Catholic perspective, that would be a great heresy. Fortunately this is not a Catholic teaching.

If we knew with certainty (because God previously said they will be) they were true, why would they be ignored? If we definitely knew they were true, they would serve as a great protection against falling in error, an envouragement to those who weren't sure what is true and what is not as regards faith, and a guide for confused Catholics on what to believe, because they would know that God protected such a declaration from error and therefore that such a declaration must be, as follows from God protecting it from error, true.

From Catholic point of view, this too would be a heresy.

It would because it implies lack of trust in God who said he would protect the pope. If a Catholic knew this, and yet still didn't trust his declaration of some truth, then this would necessarily imply that God lied when He said He would protect the pope, or that He wasn't powerful enough to stop the pope from proclaiming heresy - or perhaps such a Catholic might know that God revealed that He will protect the pope, but lack trust in God's promise.

They are, but due to God's protection we know that they are true - not because of the one who says them, but because of the one who watches over them.

No, but merely believing what he says doesn't entail that you can't also check it to see that it really is so. I at least don't see any contradiction.

If you see a verse in the Bible that seems to contradict another verse in the Bible, which one do yoh believe? Perhaps the comparison isn't exactly the same, but the moat important aspect of it is present in both cases - in both cases you deal with two seemingly contradictory statements that you know (because God revealed this to be the case) to be true, and therefore that cannot contradict one another. The correct way would be therefore to try to resolve the contradiction; one couldn't simply throw away one statement in favor of the other, because either option would imply that God lied: either He would have lied that Bible is His word, or He would have lied that He will protect the pope. Either way, any genuine contradiction would be impossible.

God revealed that the pope is infallible, and how his infallibility works I have already explained. Since him being infallible is part of Divine revelation, and Divine revelation is the measure of whether a belief is correct or not, your question is solved.

The same reply applies as the one to "So should it not also measure"?

What if God says that he protects such a secondary source from error?

What if God says that he protects such a secondary source from error?

What if God says that he protects such a secondary source from error?

It is found in the OT, just not explicitly stated like it is in the NT.
Only in terms of a fallible understanding.
God the Father is fully God and not a man, it's the same with the Holy Spirit.
No, because the Word is God and became flesh. The Word is his own person.
Why are you using the ESV? Also, the Word who is Jesus Christ is his own person.
The human nature of Jesus Christ did not know, while the divine nature of Jesus Christ always knows.
Yeah, like the KJV when it says "knoweth." That's not a problem, see above.
Only frauds and lightweights have admitted such things, who don't believe the word of God and who have either never heard of the hypostatic union before or are trying to hide it/pretend it doesn't exist on purpose.
The Son is his own person, it is not a contradiction for the Father to give authority to the Son or for the Son to always do the will of the Father. Jesus Christ is still Lord and God fully. Otherwise you are just limiting God. Basically this whole argument is arguing a case for limiting God.
Each person of the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost is fully God, and there is one true God, which I just named for you.

Are you going somewhere with this?
In the sight of man.
It proves that the Apostles gave the word by mouth and by writing. Just like today the same word can be written or preached. Sorry, but that doesn't imply they taught other mysterious things exclusively through oral tradition. Add on 2 Timothy 3:14 and you must know of whom the word of God comes from, namely the New Testament which was given to us by the same individuals. Again, 2 Timothy 3:14. I know of whom I have learned the New Testament, it's the apostles, the same set who gave me 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Catholic dogma didn't come from them, it is from a stranger.

yes of course, the point was why in the greek two different words are used.

I have already explained that they are not two different names
he says "and upon this you", so it's literally the same
If he was given the name John from the word Jonny to indicate a correlation between them then it's perfectly grammatically correcy. You can't fathom this only because your language does not have gendered nouns. Learn a language with gendered nouns, and you'll get it.
okok so if I say "hey bro, you are an idiot and upon this idiot I will spit" would you think I was going to spit on my own face? It's like you are functionally illiterate, seriously.

They are different. And if you are trying to imply some fraud other than the New Testament which is entirely in Greek, you're wasting your time. It's two different names and words, it doesn't get any more basic than this fact. And that means everything else you said that contradicts this is irrelevant.

Yes, it proves the institution of the Eucharist, which is the summit of the faith.
Not seeing the words "in the sight of man" in that verse, buddy.
John 16:12: I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.
As we can see, the Holy Spirit continues to reveal God's truths. Therefore it cannot be said that the scriptures contain all that is revealed.
I made a mistake while righting the post. I wasn't trying to hide something, if that's what your implying.
Oh how wrong your are. Jesus is literally telling you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Doesn't get more literal than that.

Yes, it proves the institution of the Eucharist, which is the sum and summary of the faith.
Not seeing the words "in the sight of man" in that verse, buddy.
John 16:12: I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.
As we can see, the Holy Spirit continues to reveal God's truths. Therefore it cannot be said that the scriptures contain all that is revealed.
I made a mistake while writing the post. I wasn't trying to hide something, if that's what your implying.
Oh how wrong your are. Jesus is literally telling you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Doesn't get more literal than that.

Try widening your view to James 2:14-26 and you'll understand better.
Yes, the Holy Spirit is the one who indwells every believing person and is guiding them to all truth. Note that this is the infallible authority interpreting the Scripture.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

It contains all that is needed for the man of God to be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works— like it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Don't forget the second verse.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I've read the whole letter. Still don't see this "justification before men", even less so considering that the world is supposed to hate us.
Yes, as you say the Holy Spirit is what interprets Scripture. However, it is not for everyone to interpret it, much less the unlearned who twist the it's words.
"He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. " - 2 Peter 3:16

That is why tradition is needed, so as not to stray into heresy.

Jesus IS talking about physical bread, which is His flesh.

That's not what you're saying though, is it. That's more like the pastor of my church preaching a sermon from the bible, not like Roma locuta est causa finita est.
My bible never says anything about Mary being bodily assumed.
Let's ask Jesus that

Oh, user, I don't think you wanted to throw me that softball. When there is a seeming contradiction in scripture, I harmonize them based on the knowledge they both share the same divine author, they are both the very words of God Himself just as much as when He told Moses 'EHYEH ASHER EHYEH'. So user, in light of that answer, do you mean to say that the pope is God incarnate, because that's the only way this little analogy will work.
Yeah I'm guessing they're pretty different
That's why I deliberately used the word interpretation. So often I hear Catholics saying that bible verses which contradict official church teaching are just my interpretation, so I want to know why it's never that the official church teaching is just their interpretation. Why do Catholics always harmonize scripture with the pope, instead of the pope with scripture? Because in reality all this is just an excuse to justify unbelief in God's word, so one can call themselves a Christian without having to actually submit to God. And the pope's false claims to authority have been utilized to blot out the very gospel of Jesus Christ itself.
Well you see the problem is I take my bible and open it to Romans 3:28, and it tells me that I am made right with God by faith alone, and then I take this meeting between the pope and his friends called the council of Trent, and it tells me I am anathema for believing that. So with the reality of genuine contradiction, the true Christian is he that chooses God over the pope.
Except you also admitted the pope's teachings are merely human, so I'm going to have to repeat the demand to know why this mere man is exempt from the universal measuringstick?

What if raising a man to the level of God is called idolatry?
What if Jesus said we are not to allow ourselves to nullify the word of God for traditions of men?
What if we followed God instead of men?

James 2:14

If he's saying it to someone else then he must be saying to God as well.
Yes, and through tradition we know how the early Christians interpreted the bible. These teachings survived to today through writing and apostolic succession.
So let me get this straight…
Jesus: You must eat my flesh and my blood (John 6)
Jesus: Take, eat my flesh and drink my blood. Here's how you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. (Matthew 26)
You: Wow, these two things are completely unrelated. No relation whatsoever. Nope. Nothing.

Yeah, no.

He said "this is my body."

1 Peter 1:24-25
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Corinthians 4:1-4, Romans 4:2-5.

What is his body made of? Cake?
Okay?
Again, Okay? How does that prove what I said is wrong? You still haven't answered my question: why talk about justification before men when people are supposed to hate us for telling the truth?

The flesh profiteth nothing

?

You keep talking about eating Jesus' flesh, but Jesus said the flesh profiteth nothing

The word of God will never be lost and God will not allow it to be destroyed ever. Everything else is corruptible, like the previous verse 23 says. I believe the incorruptible, the word of God, not the corruptible seed.

Point is the language is completely different. You don't see him ever refer to his body in John 6, or to his flesh in Matthew 26. There's no overlap there. You can't mix up and confuse the two passages like this. It is not honest and not representing what the text actually says.

Do you want to save them?

Indeed, it is the words that are both spirit and life as John 6:63 tells us.

*sigh* Do you think we eat Jesus as a source of protein?

By corruptible seed do you mean men? So you just rely on "feeling the spirit" and that's good enough for you?
Okay, in one verse he say "flesh", while in the other he says "body". Big deal. Both are synonymous. What you can't get around now is that he plainly says "blood" in both. Can't get around that one now.
I thought that was Jesus' job?

The so-called "teachings" you referred to are outside of the word of God. Therefore, the corruptible seed. That's all I meant. Not sure what you mean by feeling. I'm saying the word of God is incorruptible so I believe what it says.

If that's so then why didn't you just quote them honestly? Trying to confuse people here?

Alright sure where was the wine in John 6? Can you tell us why you didn't start with this?

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The "teachings" I'm referring to is the interpretation of the word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bible doesn't interpret itself, and I'll take the words of those who were the literal students of the apostles over "pastor" Jessica down the street.

How am I being dishonest? Because I said flesh instead of body? I was trying to illustrate a point, and they are synonymous after all.

In John 6 Jesus is telling us to drink his blood. In Matthew 26 He demonstrates how to do this. I don't see how mentioning wine in John 6 would be relevant since he is addressing a crowd while in Matthew 26 he's talking only to his apostles who are in charge of carrying the ritual.

Only Jesus saves. If I tell someone the truth, it's not me saving them, it's God. Also, still not seeing the correlation between "justification before men".

Bless you for those sites.
I had no clue there were traditional latin masses in my country, will check it out soon.

I'll let the Holy Ghost be the judge of that.

Yeah, you misrepresented the fact that John 6 is not a passage dealing with the last supper or the Lord's supper, there is no table there, there is no physical bread there, there is no wine there. Then you also I think intentionally changed the language of Matthew 26 in an attempt to make people think they said the same thing when they actually didn't. So if they are really synonymous, why exactly did you feel the need to do this?

Someone can claim to be whatever they want, someone can forge whatever they want and corrupt the words of whatever they want. I only believe in and trust the incorruptible words that God was referring to when he said "my words shall not pass away."

If you won't see the difference, that's a sad shame, I must say.

I'm just trying to figure out how you can bring wine into the equation of John 6, and also to figure out if you have any ideas or any conception about what "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood" is referring to.

James 2:14-16
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

This might just be a modern misconception of what the word "save" means and how to use it. Because Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9—
And Jude said
You can't save someone or do anything at all without God. But the fact of the matter is this is a standard usage of the term, as I just showed you in the KJV. I wouldn't object to Paul saying so, I know exactly what he means, and that's how I mean to say "to save them." I'm using the same language as the Bible. And that is also why the first scripture I quoted is demonstrating that Jesus is literally with those who take on the great commission. Because obviously He has to be there. Good fruit brings forth after itself.

Meaning?

Again, John 6 is Jesus explaining that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. At the last supper, Jesus showed his apostles how to do this. So yes, they are very related.

Oh of course there must always be conspiracy with you protties, otherwise you'd have to face the facts that the beliefs of the early christians are completely Catholic.

Repost those verses as long as you want, it won't change their meaning.

Well regardless we're talking about the same thing here: God saving through us. Still don't see how that plays into "justification before men".

Meaning that any saved person who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can discern it, because they have God's help. And like I said, the man of God is made perfect, perfect meaning complete, once he has the word of God. He has the entirety of all doctrine and the infallible Holy Spirit guiding him into all truth.

Alright, now all you need to do is prove it.

Read James 2:14-26 and the whole chapter of Romans 4 and notice how they both involve Abraham and talk about his faith and works, and both Romans and James are both the inspired Scripture. If you really care, you will and you will be able to see how works justified to man, whereas faith justified him to God, which is why James 2:14-18 begins by talking about saving others through not having a dead faith. The person being profitted by this is the other man seeing the works, as James 2:15-16 explains.

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Yes, and it's by relying on Feeling the Spirit™ that you protties are splintering into thousands of different denoms.

I already, I provided a citation from Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of the apostle John:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6
So, it's clear he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. More citations can be found at therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html.

Now you are not even being consistent in your own doctrine since James 2:24 says justification is by faith and works. If this is justification before men, then faith is included in that. Now you are saying justification before is only works.

Again more meaningless words all to hide the fact that all you have to confirm your doctrines is your own "intuition".

Attached: Johnxxiii-color-tiara-sm.jpg (240x221, 14.69K)

I am not nor do claim to be a protestant. My church and its forerunners have never been part of the catholic church, but protestant denominations have. That's because you're confused about what the word "church" means and about congregational rule as established clearly in the NT.

Please don't downtalk the Holy Spirit or what the Lord said in John 14:16,17.

Have you forgotten the word of God?

And yet you're Calvinist to a tee, wonder why that is

I don't care what you're church claims to be. If you subscribe to doctrines issued from the protestant reformation, you're protestant to me.
Would you mind actually addressing the arguments instead of being pedantic?

And that's how I know you're a protestant.

I'm just an independent Baptist, not a Reformed Baptist, or any special fancy denominations. Thus I do not believe in any point of tulip. I do not believe in either lapsarianism, I'll go with 1 Timothy 4:10 and John 5:40.

Are you seriously implying the word of God is "meaningless"?

Riveting

Are you?

I quoted Proverbs 30:5 verbatim and you called it meaningless words. I was trying to give space for you to realize that what the Bible says isn't meaningless. But if you insist on calling this part of Scripture meaningless, I have no right to stop you from saying it. Can I agree with it? Absolutely not.

If someone starts quoting bible verses which have nothing to do with the topic, then yes their words are meaningless blabber. So kindly stop misusing the word of God to fit your purpose.

Also, dropped the discussion about the Eucharist pretty quick, haven't you. Wonder why…

The only difference is that your pastor doesn't have a Divine guarantee that he won't say falsehood. Literally the only difference.

You haven't shown that the Bible is the only source of public revelation (note that other sources of revelation, like the teachings of the Apostles that weren't written down in the Bible, are a completely different issue than papal infalliblity, since the latter concerns only repeating what was Divinely revealed; note also that, as I said already, public Divine revelation has already ended with the death of the last Apostle.)

> God said that He will protect the pope's words -> Since pope's words are protected by God and He is omnipotent, we can trust pope's words

Are you saying that God in principle couldn't stop the pope from saying something wrong? What about His omnipotence?

1. There is no nullifying God's revealed teachings, only repeating them
2. The teachings in question have been revealed by God, not men, the pope being there only to protect them (pope's words don't count as additional teachings, because they merely repeat what God revealed)

Where?

No, but listening to your personal, fallible interpretation of God's word absolutely can.

And why do you think so?

Can you show where exactly the reasoning I gave you is wrong? It explains why it would be wrong, namely that mediately it would necessarily imply either heresy or lack of trust in God. Similarly, when Old Testament Israelites refused to listen to prophets, they sinned, even though prophets were just mere men; the pope isn't a prophet, but my analogy applies because you claimed that rejecting a mere man is never wrong, and I gave you an example where it indeed is, therefore showing that at least in some cases it is, therefore debunking your assertion that it never is.

This is extremely arguable, and when I have more time maybe I'll debate with you on this, but if we assumed it's true, the same reply as to "My bible never says anything" applies.

God's word by which we can judge pope's declarations is such that God protects these declarations. There, we have submitted them to the same scrutiny as other human claims, by seeing what God revealed about them. Now we can apply the results of this judgement, by believing these declarations.

The second, provided by "him" you mean "his official declarations" and by "blameless" you mean "not false". The popes themselves are sinners, and infallibility doesn't entail that their declarations can't be done with bad motives, or in inappropriate time, etc. It simply means they can't be false.

I don't trust anything but the word of God. I believe every word, because every word of it is pure. I guess you need everything explained in simple language or you will just continually act like you don't understand why I brought it up. Acting confused and so on.

You are not making any attempt to prove it. All you are doing is quoting corruptible sources that aren't deserving of any response. Come back when you find authority.

That's called eisegesis fyi

Why don't you accept the gospelof Thomas, the books of Enoch, and the didache as canon? Do you see where I'm getting at?

John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

That's why I specified "misusing", friend. Nothing wrong with using scripture to prove a point, otherwise I'd be a huge hypocrite all along.

You don't see where I'm getting at.
Why do you consider the gospel of John canon?

O i am laffin. Even protestant scholars agree with the authenticity of Ignatius' letters. But there's no point in arguing with someone who so obstinately stays in baptist pretend land.

Uh, ok?