Does Catholicism label Christian conversion 'Transubstantiation'?   i gather from Adrian's response that it does. Thank you for that insight Adrian --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@...> wrote:   So Christian conversion is not God's work?   Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 13:50, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: He could do so but never would? * Yes. Never would and never did. And if you find what you think is an example: i can say at least something God would never do unnecessarily or insignificantly.   Thanks   --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@ web.de> wrote:   It sounds like you are saying He could do so but never would? Is that correct? "It's getting a little difficult to follow what you are positing vice what you attribute to others." Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 13:28, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: It's difficult to see this rant as anything more than assuming what you have set out to prove, in the hopes that your mocking tone will distract from the opposite is already proven.  * i assume no one here said God is incapable of changing  things' substances without changing their appearance. Correct, i 'rant' that that's my assumption. In fact it's fair to say that i mock the accusation that some noncatholic (or Catholic) here said that God is incapable of changing things' substances without changing their appearances.   If anyone here said or suggested such a thing, Who? (If that's not too mocking and ranting of a question.) Especially since Adrian says someone has.   --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@ web.de> wrote:   It's difficult to see this rant as anything more than assuming what you have set out to prove, in the hopes that your mocking tone will distract from the opposite is already proven.  Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:17, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: More Catholicism apologetics in action. Debating things that no one ever debated.   God doesn't do stupid unnecessary imaginary things such as 'changing what something is with out changing its outward qualities.' Nor does God need or want to.   Nor does God create God. Nor does God 'change only 'outward qualities' and then partially change the 'outward qualities' back again such as bleeding,' as is part of some Catholic mythology --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Descartes326 <descartes326@ yahoo.com> wrote:   If he can change water to wine and few fish & loaves to many, then he can change what something is with out changing its outward qualities. In any case, there are a few bloody hosts out there, next time you're visiting Europe.   Rene From: Sandra P <Roadservices@ msn.com> To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 3:58:15 PM Subject: Re: [CDF] Re: Eucharist   My goodness, Phil. We are looking for the miracle in the Bible. The water to wine miracle is recorded in the Bible. They saw water and tasted wine. So that is not the problem. Where is there in the Bible where someone says, "hey, this bread is chewy and bloody now, and the wine tastes just like blood." In His grip, Sandra ----- Original Message ----- From: "CoffeeCup" <phil.westman@ gmail.com> To: <catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:45 PM Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@. .. wrote: > > you add you add to Gods word. He never mentioned a miracle. Why do you add a miracle there. He said is is my body/blood no mention of a miracle. ===== You just don't read properly; I never said He mentioned a miracle, I said He performed one. When He changed water into wine He didn't mention He was about to perform a miracle, He just did it. In the last supper the Lord performs a miracle, he explains that he is giving His body and His blood for the disciples to eat and drink. You don't believe Him, so you reject the miracle. Unbelief is your problem jammytoots, and you know what mark 16:16 says about that. ===== > -----Original Message----- > From: "CoffeeCup" phil.westman@ ... > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:19:43 > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > Where does Jesus say a miracle will be involved. You are clearly and > knowingly adding to Gods word. You are not following Jesus exact words > ===== > When He preformed the miracle at the last supper. He said in very clear > and very plain language "this is my body" and "this is my blood" so we > believe Him and you don't. It is as stark and simple as that, you reject > Christ's words. > ===== > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "CoffeeCup" phil.westman@ > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:23:04 > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > No where does Jesus say believe the bread is bread transmuted > believe > > the wine is my blood transmuted. > > ===== > > That's because the bread and the wine are not transmuted; what a silly > > idea! The bread and the wine become - by a miracle - the body and the > > blood of Christ; it is called the real presence. We do not know how > that > > happens, but we believe the Lord so we believe that it does happen. > You > > on the other hand simply reject what Jesus says, so you walk away from > > the real presence and substitute some meaningless ceremony of symbols > > and call it "the Lord's summer" - what a travesty. > > ===== > > > > > > > -----O > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "dmacly" dmacly@ > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:16:15 > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. . . . com > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > Dana: He sure does, He says this is my body this is my blood, He > > doesnt say this is like my body or this symbolizes my body. You have > to > > twist it away to get to your theology. > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > The btead and wine are physcical reality that remain bread and > wine. > > No where does Jesus say believe the bread is bread transmuted believe > > the wine is my blood transmuted. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "dmacly" dmacly@ > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:31:44 > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > Dana: Yes He is spirit, He isn't t a symbol, and that's what you > > claim spiritual means, symbolic. So now is God symbolic since He is > > spirit? If not, then why is the Eucharist only symbolic, why cant it > be > > real and be spiritual? > > > > You might not worship His sacrifice but I do, I thank Jesus every > > day for what He has done for us and for me. > > > > > > > > Once again, you dont know what the Catholic church teaches about > the > > Eucharist. The Eucharist, the Mass is not another sacrifice, its the > one > > sacrifice made by Christ. If you are going to debate our belief, > please > > learn them first. Thank you. > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > God is a spirit. We worship in spirit a risen Lord in heaven who > > will come again. we worship a person eternally. We do not daily > worship > > his sacrifice which he did once for all. It is not repeated or > > reexperienced or rededicated etcetc. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:51:38 > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > Dana: Please dont speak for me, I believe Jesus. You cant see > > because you live and see in the carnal mind, step out from there and > see > > with your spirit, allow the Holy Spirit to show you. > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus was speaking symbolically because the literal is > > cannibalism. No one NO one takes him literally that's why it is > > symbolic. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: "factual101" <factual101@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:50 > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, "Sandra P" > > <Roadservices@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howe can we be carnally minded when you are the one talking > > carnal, and > > > > > > > we're the ones talking spiritual? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eating [yikes] Christ's body is about as carnal as you can > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > B to Sandy: It is also Biblical. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. . . . com > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:35 AM > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: You see it and are talking in the carnal mind, we > > Catholics see and > > > > > > > understand in the spirit. Our spirit sees and understands. > > Your use of the > > > > > > > word cannibalism proves my point. > > > > > > > Those around Jesus said as you did and left Him cause it was > > to hard to > > > > > > > understand, yet we see Jesus didnt go after them to explain > it > > away as > > > > > > > symbolic as you have tried. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > john 6:53 literally clearly unambiguously cannibalism. The > > catholic church > > > > > > > > eats tramuted bread and wine but Jesus said nothing about > > trasmutation he > > > > > > > > said his real body and blood. No one takes him at his > > literal word. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:43:28 > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: And where does Jesus say its symbolic? Chapter and > > verse please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not literally but symbolicly as he said=in remembrance > of > > me > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:35:27 > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: So you agree Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink > > His blood? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the defintion of cannabalism is eating human flesh > which > > is what Jesus > > > > > > > > > > said to do. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:38:35 > > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: Yes thats what the romans said when they > butchered > > the > > > > > > > > > > Christians. You are in some interesting company. > > > > > > > > > > I am against all wrong and twisted interpretation of > > Gods Word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, > jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eating flesh is cannabalism. even Catholics do not > > take Jesus > > > > > > > > > > > literally so why be against others who don't > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:24:32 > > > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, "Sandra > P" > > > > > > > > > > > <Roadservices@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the reasons Mary totes her baby around with > > her in > > > > > > > > > > > > apparitions is > > > > > > > > > > > > that she knows Catholics understand her role to be > > meaningless > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [What if the visuals were Mary lying face > > down at the feet > > > > > > > > > > > > of Jesus, > > > > > > > > > > > > worshipping Him? What if the depictions of Mary > > were of her half > > > > > > > > > > > > naked, > > > > > > > > > > > > emaciated, and dead on your altar week after week? > > See, we love > > > > > > > > > > > > the LORD > > > > > > > > > > > > and are offended that you worship him as a > helpless > > baby, or a > > > > > > > > > > > > dead savior, > > > > > > > > > > > > or even as an inanimate object in your eucharist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But not beautiful inmmaculate Mary. She is kind, > > loving, > > > > > > > > > > > > nurturing, and > > > > > > > > > > > > even so powerful she will defeat the dragon! Not > > Jesus, you > > > > > > > > > > > > simply pity > > > > > > > > > > > > him.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: So you are offended by scripture mentioning > the > > Christ child, > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus dying on the cross. WOW!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > Were did Mary die on the cross? Please show this in > > scripture > > > > > > > > > > > please.. Please show where Mary is mentioned in > > scripture as a child. > > > > > > > > > > > You dont think Jesus has the power to let Mary or > any > > of the Saqints > > > > > > > > > > > defeat Satan, cause you limit Jesus power. You dont > > believe > > > > > > > > > > > scripture when Jesus tells us to eat His flesh and > > drink His blood > > > > > > > > > > > to have everlasting life. You are offended by what > you > > think > > > > > > > > > > > Catholics believe, not what they actually believe, > how > > SAD!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > You protestants are not bible believers, only > > Catholics truly > > > > > > > > > > > believe the Words of God. You sad protestants > believe > > what you make > > > > > > > > > > > up, what you want Jesus to be in your image. Making > > Gods Word be > > > > > > > > > > > something its not. Throwing many books out to try > and > > hide and > > > > > > > > > > > distort Gods Word. That should truly offend you, but > > you keep on > > > > > > > > > > > doing it over and over again, offending God each and > > every time. > > > > > > > > > > > REPENT!! before its to late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> jammytoots@... wrote:
>
> JT: he said this is my body/blood and it
> remained bread and wine=no miracle mentioed
> or performed. The water at the wedding
> changed to wine

sw: So, JT, by your reading of the several
passages where Jesus said this, Jesus was
lying.  He declared, "This is my body" and
it wasn't His body.  He declared, "This is
my blood" and it wasn't His blood.  In your
theology Jesus is a liar - how nice.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

> Bev <pineapple886@...> wrote:
>
> More Catholicism apologetics in action. Debating
> things that no one ever debated.

sw: Hmmmm, if "no one" is debating this, why
are you "answering" it?

> God doesn't do stupid unnecessary imaginary
> things such as 'changing what something is
> with out changing its outward qualities.'
> Nor does God need or want to.
>
> Nor does God create God. Nor does God
> 'change only 'outward qualities' and
> then partially change the 'outward
> qualities' back again such as bleeding,'
> as is part of some Catholic mythology

sw: Well, first off - before going on, please
take the time to delete all trailing messages
except the ONE you're replying to.  The archives
are public here, anyone can go back and see the
previous messages.  Those reading in "Digest"
mode don't need to read or scroll through the
whole history in every message.

sw: Second and to the point:  It was GOD
who held up bread and declared it IS His
body, yet it retained the appearance of
bread!  This is NOT about God creating
God - it's about God declaring something
and those who are faithful to Him accepting
and BELIEVING IN HIM.

sw: May God give you the faith to accept Him
at His Word.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Thank you for your attempt, Adrian. That's very wonderful and kind. Start. Paul, and hopefully you and me too, see baptism as participation in Christ's death. And resurrection.   Amen.   But How?   (Please remember if it's sacriligious or blasphemous for you to say, or if you're not even permitted to think about it, much less express it; or if the Popes haven't gotten around to infallibly answering; or you're totally uninterested in how; those are all fine honest answers from you to me.)   Just to noncritically see if i jibe your mind or prayer into 'how':   is it by Transubstantiation? Time-travel? Please don't be offended. i have my answer. i'm trying to understand a) if Catholicism has one; b) what it is. Is it through obedience? Meaning obedience to such an extent (the extent of getting in water and being buried in the water then raised out of it---in front of at least one other person) is in God's eyes identification with Christ? The equivalent of His physical death? Is it the identification matter? Is there actual physical death (and physical resurrection) Transubstantiated, albeit with a water-costume, such that you Adrian physically died, but you just didn't notice it? You did notice it? You were a baby when it happened so you're not a good one to ask?   Is it a matter of the Spirit?     Thanks so much when you have time --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@...> wrote:   Romans 6:4  4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  Paul sees Baptism as a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.  Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 13:19, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: Apparently HOW? remains too tough (too mocking? too ranting? too unimportant? ) a question for Phil and others still..       ------------ --------- --------- -----       Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins. 1Peter 3:21 says baptism saved the faithful now. * How? How does baptism save the 'faithful'? (Thanks at least for this apparent admission that baptism requires faith of the baptized. That's Scriptural).   Since 1 P 3:21 says that baptism is NOT the putting away of the filth [sin] of the flesh itself, then that is NOT how baptism washed away Saul's sins per Acts 22:16. Since Scripture does not and cannot contradict itself.   So we pray we're helping Phil and others to try to sharpen and focus their prayer and consideration: HOW then DOES baptism wash away sins per Acts 22:16?       ------------ --------- --------- ------         John 3:5 says that a man must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God.  * Amen. In physical analogy, this is similar to pointing out that folks require both conception then delivery to fully enter the kingdom of men. Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:31; 2:6-7. More directly to baptism, John 3:5 is based on Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8-10; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33; cf Ac 1:5; 11:16.   Additionally, as Peter recordedly points out in Acts 10:47: believers receive the Spirit first which requires redemption-- -then are baptized in water (cf Mark 16:16; 1 P 3:21)        ------------ --------- ----       [How?] be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.'" Simple isn't it pineapple? * No. Since that's not the only mention of baptism or sins or washing in the New Testament. Sorry if that fact's not so simple to you, Phil.   For example, Peter who himself earlier spoke Acts 2:38 stated in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is NOT the putting away of the filth [sin] of the flesh. Words as in preaching and dialogue don't take place in a vaccuum, Phil, or in no context. Do they Phil? What's not simple about that for you?   Thus whatever the expression 'wash away sins' means in regard to baptism in Acts 22:16, it does NOT mean 'the putting away of the filth [sin] of the flesh' per 1 Peter 3:21.   But like i asked, Phil, please feel welcome to elaborate on the exact mechanism, as you understand it, that baptism washed away Saul's sins in Acts 22:16. If that's too difficult a project, or you're not permitted to elaborate, just say. Then i'll know not to ask you such a simple question. i both know and read and fully agree with Acts 22:16 and its words----i believe even more than you. i'm simply asking you for HOW does baptism water 'wash away sins.' Not the fact that it does     ------------ --------- --------- --------           "Of age" candidates for baptism will have been praying for the best part of a year before they receive baptism. Most will go through RCIA as part of their journey to baptism. RCIA stands for Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults; it is a 10 month long catechesis journey through which Candidates and Catechumens pass on their journey to reception into the Church of Christ. * There is an odd, legalistic 'Christian' division in parts of the US that's formal divisive name is 'Church of Christ.' One of its peculiarities is its Catholic-like idolizing (perhaps even worse) of baptism. However it properly rejects baby-'baptism. ' i know Phil means Catholicism here though. So like the noncatholic 'Church of Christ,' Phil may be saying that such RCIA attendees are either not Catholic or not forgiven (or not saved) until they finish their 10 months by being baptized. This is similar to 'Church of Christ' false teaching     ------------ --------- --------- --------- -----           Christ is the source of forgiveness, baptism, prayer, confession are the instrumental means by which the sinner asks for and receives forgiveness. * 'Church of Christ' false teaching is that there is no forgiveness by God of the sinner until they are baptized. This flatly contradicts Scripture. Such as 1 John 1:9; Romans 10; Acts 2:21; 10:43, 47; 13:39; Mark 16:16; etc. The noncatholic 'Church of Christ' attempts to evade these Scriptures by teaching that they are in effect incomplete. That they are merely part of a list like a recipe or laundary list of which baptism is another item. Thus, like Catholicism, they confuse salvation from eternal lake of fire and justification with baptism. Neglecting that God's salvation is more full and more involved and more nuanced and more wonderful than merely being a ticket to 'heaven' someday         ------------ --------- --------- ----           The use of instruments is the norm in grace. Most instruments are common created things such as words and thoughts in prayer, water in baptism, and hearing and speaking in the case of absolution. * To the contrary, Phil's entire thought both obfuscates and clouds Phil himself, as well as others. Just like the word and teaching 'Sacrament' is also mere meaningless religious fluff. By definition, everything created is 'instrument. ' Thus there's little to no use for the word here. It merely states the obvious that God had to create someones else to grace or else He wouldn't have had anyone to grace. Phil also helpfully points out to us that generally people speak, think, and write.. Communicate. Thank you Phil. People are social. God is too. Amen.   Grace is God. God became flesh. But that wasn't enough. Because that flesh became also life-giving Spirit. God's goal isn't merely to interact with us flesh to flesh. But even deeper and more intrinsically Spirit with spirit. Spirit in spirit. And then Spirit in soul and ultimately in body. Glorification. Transfiguration. This does not transpire by means of flesh to flesh contact. By eating Jesus' physical flesh physically. Because God has something much more lasting, permanent, easy, available, real, and normal than that. Namely God who became flesh became Spirit to get inside of man. Believers. Permanently. Earlier Phil seemed to find this completely irrelevant as to why Catholicism' s Transubstantiation Costume Eucharist is bogus, irrelevant, and deceitful.   So of course people speak to, eat drink and breathe spiritually (not physically), love, pray to, mingle with, communicate with God. That's less 'instruments' than direct vessels. Gen 2; Rm 9; 2 Cor 4. Vessels of glory containing God!!!!!! Eternally. Person to person. Hallelujah!   Lastly, Phil at least states 'water in baptism' above. That's a micromillimeter closer to him at least attempting to answer HOW? Let's try to help him by trying to get him to specify: Grace (God) mingles with the baptism water? God gives grace (pretending it could be something other than God---) to baptism water? How exactly does baptism water transmit grace? Are Catholics allowed to think about that? To answer that? Not even in RCIA? Not even the Pope? If Phil either can't or won't say, can Phil at least copy and paste the Pope's explanation? My explanation i've already given, and am ready to give more if needed. Baptism is obedience to God. Public obedience. Thus in that act of physical, visible, 'public' obedience to God, God graces the baptized person that instant directly. With God. From God. Inside the person. In God. By God. Directly. As Spirit. To your spirit. And soul. Mingling with them. It's categorically not the water that contains or transmits God directly. Instead, the water, necessary, symbolizes God. Among other things. Including death and resurrection. Now, or whenever ready: feel welcome to take your turn Phil       ------------ --------- --------- -----       you need not dress up your questions in som much theatrical language pineapple, none of us take your vitriolic comments to heart, and the Lord will forgive you when you repent of such words. So save them for those who will be impressed, they impress nobody here. * My simple, naked, undressed question was, and remains, HOW, Phil. Sorry if HOW? isn't impressive enough for you. Maybe anyone 'Catholic' beside you can try to simply answer it       ------------ --------- --------- ---         Christ speaks of baptism and the Spirit thus "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) and saint Luke says "Get up and be baptised and wash away thy sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16) So what more need be said? * God and Peter at least thought 1 Peter 3:21 need be said additionally. 'Baptism is NOT putting away of the filth [sin] of the flesh.' Likewise 'he who believes is not condemned' Mk 16:16. Also Revelation 22's 'blessed are those who wash their robes [that is, in the blood of Jesus] to have right to the tree of life [Jesus] and enter...the New Jerusalem [the Body of Christ].'   As Peter also pointed out: no Scripture is of its own singular 'interpretation. ' Rather all Scripture cannot contradict and must flow with the rest of Scripture, the apostles' teaching. Cf John 10:35. Let's look at Phil's last comments, below, so far, on point, to see if he even can guess what i mean by my HOW (does baptism wash away sins) ?       ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------         Christ is the cause of forgiveness; specifically, Christ's atonement - his life, death, resurrection, and glorification - is the source from which forgiveness flows, * This is kind of mixed up. Maybe this is just Catholicism tradition, in contrast to Scripture and apostles' teaching-tradition. Most directly it is Christ's death that redeems from death for sin. Of course Christ couldn't remain dead, and never sinned in his life. But it's Christ's DEATH that is His payment, His redemption, His substitutionary payment, for sin. And thus the base (cause) of God's forgiveness. But remember, our question to the interlocoturs here is about baptism. Let's see if Phil answers the specific HOW with his final comments:     ------------ --------- --------- ---       ...and the waters of baptism are instrumental in dispensing the grace of regeneration and forgiveness of sins. Christ washes away our sins with the waters of baptism... * So those RCIA candidates are NOT washed away, despite any prayer and confession from them, UNTIL they're baptized? This is a simple  yes or no question. Not a trick question. None of these were. Phil needn't fret whether we agree or disagree with his answer.   But more importantly; HOW's that water instrumental? We get that Phil says they're 'instrumental. ' We've gotten that from the start. But HOW? They're instrumental by being instrumental? That doesn't help us learn what you're teaching, Phil. Since Christ's death and life is the source, does that mean Christ's death and life are INSIDE the baptism waters? Mingled with them? Inhabiting them? Christ HIMSELF is in the water? Mingled with the water? His blood is? The waters transubstantiate or were transubstatitated? HOW, dear sir, are your waters 'instrumental' ? HOW?   Please remember: if you've never thought of it before, or have no idea, or are forbidden from or don't want to say: then simply please say so. That's fine. Thank you Phil (and others)        --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Phil <phil.westman@ gmail..com> wrote:   On 18/12/2009 12:15, jammytoots@yahoo. com wrote:   Nothing there says they are both done simualtsniously or that one is connected to the other. We do know that Jesus washed us with his blood ===== So? Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins. 1Peter 3:21 says baptism saved the faithful now. John 3:5 says that a man must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. QED, jammytoots. QED... By the way QED is from Latin, it is an abbreviation for quod erat demonstrandum which means "which was to be demonstrated" . ===== From: Phil <phil.westman@ gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:45:10 +0800 To: <catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com> Subject: Re: [CDF] Re: HOW? too tuff a question   On 18/12/2009 10:58, jammytoots@yahoo. com wrote:   You said water washes our sins. When it says be baptised and have your sins washed away. You assume it is the water washing the sins. But that is not what it says. Be baptised is one act and aims washed away is another Seperate act. Nothing there says they are both done simualtsniously or that one is connected to the other. We so know that Jesus washed is with his blood ===== No, I said the waters of baptism; not just any water. And what I said is what the bible says, so why are you complaining? Just read the passages quoted or referenced below. Stop bugging me with irrelevant and inaccurate comments about what I've said. ===== From: Phil <phil.westman@ gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:18:08 +0800 To: <catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com> Subject: Re: [CDF] Re: HOW? too tuff a question   On 18/12/2009 10:03, jammytoots@yahoo. com wrote:   You assume water washes the sins and not our belief in the shed blood of jesus which the bible says washes out sins ===== Well no, jammytoots, I don't assume anything, I quoted the bible, gave you the reference, and presented the case as one engaged in a debate should. You just gainsay, and that is not argument at all, it is just contradiction. There was a Monty Python skit about that kind of "argument". Get your act together, jammytoots, form a coherent argument or stop wasting everybody's time. ===== From: "CoffeeCup" <phil.westman@ gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:58:37 -0000 To: <catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com> Subject: [CDF] Re: HOW? too tuff a question   --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ ...> wrote: > > Christ remits sins by means of baptism... > * > How? ===== In the way that Acts 22:16 says, you know ... "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.'" Simple isn't it pineapple? ===== > ------------ --------- --------- -------- > ....and also by means of prayer and sacramental confession/absoluti on. > * > Which one first? > Does Catholicism permit of-age candidates for baptism to confess or pray before? ===== "Of age" candidates for baptism will have been praying for the best part of a year before they receive baptism. Most will go through RCIA as part of their journey to baptism. RCIA stands for Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults; it is a 10 month long catechesis journey through which Candidates and Catechumens pass on their journey to reception into the Church of Christ. ===== > > Actually, and contrary to Phil's and Catholicism' s false and Satanic nonscriptural teaching: > only faith (into Christ) is required to be forgiven first. Since Christ is the Forgiver. Based on His death and resurrection. Not based on Phil's or my baptism. Baptism only 'washes' sins by demonstrating their washing. Baptism is public confession of faith in Christ. By doing what Christ commanded to be done after believing. ===== Christ is the source of forgiveness, baptism, prayer, confession are the instrumental means by which the sinner asks for and receives forgiveness. The use of instruments is the norm in grace. Most instruments are common created things such as words and thoughts in prayer, water in baptism, and hearing and speaking in the case of absolution. The elder (priest) in confession acts in the person of Christ - as his minister and representative - and is thus enabled to speak the reassuring words of Christ to the sinner "I absolve you of your sins". Anyway, you need not dress up your questions in som much theatrical language pineapple, none of us take your vitriolic comments to heart, and the Lord will forgive you when you repent of such words. So save them for those who will be impressed, they impress nobody here. ===== > > What from the pit of hell is 'Sacramental' confession supposed to be? > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- > Christ washes away sins by means of baptism and also by shedding His blood on the cross. > * > So whose sins did Christ wash away by getting baptized by John ? ===== Is that a trick question? ..... I guess not ... what did Jesus say to John about His baptism? "Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptised by him in the Jordan River. 14 But John tried to prevent him, saying, "I need to be baptised by you, and yet you come to me?" 15 So Jesus replied to him, "Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then John yielded to him. 16 After Jesus was baptised, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight."" ===== > > Christ's washing away sins by our baptism is based on and requires His washing by blood. > HOW does CoffeeCup say Christ 'washes away sins by baptism'? > That Christ's blood is magically or costumed into the water? > That it only subsists or exists there? ===== Christ speaks of baptism and the Spirit thus "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) and saint Luke says "Get up and be baptised and wash away thy sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16) So what more need be said? Christ is the cause of forgiveness; specifically, Christ's atonement - his life, death, resurrection, and glorification - is the source from which forgiveness flows, and the waters of baptism are instrumental in dispensing the grace of regeneration and forgiveness of sins. In short, Christ washes away our sins with the waters of baptism and by means of prayer and by means of confession/absoluti on. ===== > > i know that's a tuff question. By the Catholicism experts desperate avoidance of it. > That word 'how.' > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --- > The one is instrumental the other causative. > * > HOW does baptism wash away sins 'instrumentally' ? ===== Christ washes away our sins with the waters of baptism and by means of prayer and by means of confession/absoluti on. ===== > > It sounds like at least Phil is taking baby steps toward dealing with my really tuff question > --- On Thu, 12/17/09, Phil phil.westman@ ... wrote: > From: jammytoots@yahoo. com > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:00 AM > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > Subject: Re: [CDF] A presbyterian comment on 1Peter 3:21, for jammytoots > > Acts2:28 Christ remits sins not baptism > ===== > That's a false dichotomy; Christ remits sins by means of baptism and also by means of prayer and sacramental confession/absoluti on. > ===== > acts22 Christ blood washs sins not water > ===== > Another false dichotomy; Christ washes away sins by means of baptism and also by shedding His blood on the cross. The one is instrumental the other causative. > ===== > I corn 12 is figurative(like immersed in work) > ===== > 1Corinthians 12:12 is not symbolic; it is describing the spiritual reality of Christian life and unity. > ===== > John 3 Christ is the water as he told the woman at the well > ===== > John 3:5 is not about the woman at the well; John 3:5 is about baptism. > ===== > mark 16 is about both salvation and condemnation. Since I am condemned for disbelieving I must be condemned for not being baptised. I an not therefore baptism not salvific > ===== > Mark 16:16 is indeed about both salvation - through belief and baptism - and condemnation through unbelief. 1Peter 3:21 shows that baptism is "salvific". > ===== .

He could do so but never would? * Yes. Never would and never did. And if you find what you think is an example: i can say at least something God would never do unnecessarily or insignificantly.   Thanks   --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@...> wrote:   It sounds like you are saying He could do so but never would? Is that correct? "It's getting a little difficult to follow what you are positing vice what you attribute to others." Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 13:28, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: It's difficult to see this rant as anything more than assuming what you have set out to prove, in the hopes that your mocking tone will distract from the opposite is already proven.  * i assume no one here said God is incapable of changing  things' substances without changing their appearance. Correct, i 'rant' that that's my assumption. In fact it's fair to say that i mock the accusation that some noncatholic (or Catholic) here said that God is incapable of changing things' substances without changing their appearances.   If anyone here said or suggested such a thing, Who? (If that's not too mocking and ranting of a question.) Especially since Adrian says someone has.   --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@ web.de> wrote:   It's difficult to see this rant as anything more than assuming what you have set out to prove, in the hopes that your mocking tone will distract from the opposite is already proven.  Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:17, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: More Catholicism apologetics in action. Debating things that no one ever debated.   God doesn't do stupid unnecessary imaginary things such as 'changing what something is with out changing its outward qualities.' Nor does God need or want to.   Nor does God create God. Nor does God 'change only 'outward qualities' and then partially change the 'outward qualities' back again such as bleeding,' as is part of some Catholic mythology --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Descartes326 <descartes326@ yahoo.com> wrote:   If he can change water to wine and few fish & loaves to many, then he can change what something is with out changing its outward qualities. In any case, there are a few bloody hosts out there, next time you're visiting Europe.   Rene From: Sandra P <Roadservices@ msn.com> To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 3:58:15 PM Subject: Re: [CDF] Re: Eucharist   My goodness, Phil. We are looking for the miracle in the Bible. The water to wine miracle is recorded in the Bible. They saw water and tasted wine. So that is not the problem. Where is there in the Bible where someone says, "hey, this bread is chewy and bloody now, and the wine tastes just like blood." In His grip, Sandra ----- Original Message ----- From: "CoffeeCup" <phil.westman@ gmail.com> To: <catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:45 PM Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@. .. wrote: > > you add you add to Gods word. He never mentioned a miracle. Why do you add a miracle there. He said is is my body/blood no mention of a miracle. ===== You just don't read properly; I never said He mentioned a miracle, I said He performed one. When He changed water into wine He didn't mention He was about to perform a miracle, He just did it. In the last supper the Lord performs a miracle, he explains that he is giving His body and His blood for the disciples to eat and drink. You don't believe Him, so you reject the miracle. Unbelief is your problem jammytoots, and you know what mark 16:16 says about that. ===== > -----Original Message----- > From: "CoffeeCup" phil.westman@ ... > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:19:43 > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > Where does Jesus say a miracle will be involved. You are clearly and > knowingly adding to Gods word. You are not following Jesus exact words > ===== > When He preformed the miracle at the last supper. He said in very clear > and very plain language "this is my body" and "this is my blood" so we > believe Him and you don't. It is as stark and simple as that, you reject > Christ's words. > ===== > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "CoffeeCup" phil.westman@ > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:23:04 > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > No where does Jesus say believe the bread is bread transmuted > believe > > the wine is my blood transmuted. > > ===== > > That's because the bread and the wine are not transmuted; what a silly > > idea! The bread and the wine become - by a miracle - the body and the > > blood of Christ; it is called the real presence. We do not know how > that > > happens, but we believe the Lord so we believe that it does happen. > You > > on the other hand simply reject what Jesus says, so you walk away from > > the real presence and substitute some meaningless ceremony of symbols > > and call it "the Lord's summer" - what a travesty. > > ===== > > > > > > > -----O > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "dmacly" dmacly@ > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:16:15 > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups.. . . com > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > Dana: He sure does, He says this is my body this is my blood, He > > doesnt say this is like my body or this symbolizes my body. You have > to > > twist it away to get to your theology. > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > The btead and wine are physcical reality that remain bread and > wine. > > No where does Jesus say believe the bread is bread transmuted believe > > the wine is my blood transmuted. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "dmacly" dmacly@ > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:31:44 > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > Dana: Yes He is spirit, He isn't t a symbol, and that's what you > > claim spiritual means, symbolic. So now is God symbolic since He is > > spirit? If not, then why is the Eucharist only symbolic, why cant it > be > > real and be spiritual? > > > > You might not worship His sacrifice but I do, I thank Jesus every > > day for what He has done for us and for me. > > > > > > > > Once again, you dont know what the Catholic church teaches about > the > > Eucharist. The Eucharist, the Mass is not another sacrifice, its the > one > > sacrifice made by Christ. If you are going to debate our belief, > please > > learn them first. Thank you. > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > God is a spirit. We worship in spirit a risen Lord in heaven who > > will come again. we worship a person eternally. We do not daily > worship > > his sacrifice which he did once for all. It is not repeated or > > reexperienced or rededicated etcetc. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:51:38 > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > Dana: Please dont speak for me, I believe Jesus. You cant see > > because you live and see in the carnal mind, step out from there and > see > > with your spirit, allow the Holy Spirit to show you. > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus was speaking symbolically because the literal is > > cannibalism. No one NO one takes him literally that's why it is > > symbolic. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: "factual101" <factual101@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:50 > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, "Sandra P" > > <Roadservices@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howe can we be carnally minded when you are the one talking > > carnal, and > > > > > > > we're the ones talking spiritual? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eating [yikes] Christ's body is about as carnal as you can > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > B to Sandy: It is also Biblical. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups.. . . com > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:35 AM > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: You see it and are talking in the carnal mind, we > > Catholics see and > > > > > > > understand in the spirit. Our spirit sees and understands. > > Your use of the > > > > > > > word cannibalism proves my point. > > > > > > > Those around Jesus said as you did and left Him cause it was > > to hard to > > > > > > > understand, yet we see Jesus didnt go after them to explain > it > > away as > > > > > > > symbolic as you have tried. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > john 6:53 literally clearly unambiguously cannibalism. The > > catholic church > > > > > > > > eats tramuted bread and wine but Jesus said nothing about > > trasmutation he > > > > > > > > said his real body and blood. No one takes him at his > > literal word. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:43:28 > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: And where does Jesus say its symbolic? Chapter and > > verse please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not literally but symbolicly as he said=in remembrance > of > > me > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:35:27 > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: So you agree Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink > > His blood? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the defintion of cannabalism is eating human flesh > which > > is what Jesus > > > > > > > > > > said to do. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:38:35 > > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: Yes thats what the romans said when they > butchered > > the > > > > > > > > > > Christians. You are in some interesting company. > > > > > > > > > > I am against all wrong and twisted interpretation of > > Gods Word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, > jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eating flesh is cannabalism. even Catholics do not > > take Jesus > > > > > > > > > > > literally so why be against others who don't > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:24:32 > > > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, "Sandra > P" > > > > > > > > > > > <Roadservices@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the reasons Mary totes her baby around with > > her in > > > > > > > > > > > > apparitions is > > > > > > > > > > > > that she knows Catholics understand her role to be > > meaningless > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [What if the visuals were Mary lying face > > down at the feet > > > > > > > > > > > > of Jesus, > > > > > > > > > > > > worshipping Him? What if the depictions of Mary > > were of her half > > > > > > > > > > > > naked, > > > > > > > > > > > > emaciated, and dead on your altar week after week? > > See, we love > > > > > > > > > > > > the LORD > > > > > > > > > > > > and are offended that you worship him as a > helpless > > baby, or a > > > > > > > > > > > > dead savior, > > > > > > > > > > > > or even as an inanimate object in your eucharist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But not beautiful inmmaculate Mary. She is kind, > > loving, > > > > > > > > > > > > nurturing, and > > > > > > > > > > > > even so powerful she will defeat the dragon! Not > > Jesus, you > > > > > > > > > > > > simply pity > > > > > > > > > > > > him.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: So you are offended by scripture mentioning > the > > Christ child, > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus dying on the cross. WOW!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > Were did Mary die on the cross? Please show this in > > scripture > > > > > > > > > > > please. Please show where Mary is mentioned in > > scripture as a child. > > > > > > > > > > > You dont think Jesus has the power to let Mary or > any > > of the Saqints > > > > > > > > > > > defeat Satan, cause you limit Jesus power. You dont > > believe > > > > > > > > > > > scripture when Jesus tells us to eat His flesh and > > drink His blood > > > > > > > > > > > to have everlasting life. You are offended by what > you > > think > > > > > > > > > > > Catholics believe, not what they actually believe, > how > > SAD!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > You protestants are not bible believers, only > > Catholics truly > > > > > > > > > > > believe the Words of God. You sad protestants > believe > > what you make > > > > > > > > > > > up, what you want Jesus to be in your image. Making > > Gods Word be > > > > > > > > > > > something its not. Throwing many books out to try > and > > hide and > > > > > > > > > > > distort Gods Word. That should truly offend you, but > > you keep on > > > > > > > > > > > doing it over and over again, offending God each and > > every time. > > > > > > > > > > > REPENT!! before its to late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

It's difficult to see this rant as anything more than assuming what you have set out to prove, in the hopes that your mocking tone will distract from the opposite is already proven.  * i assume no one here said God is incapable of changing  things' substances without changing their appearance. Correct, i 'rant' that that's my assumption. In fact it's fair to say that i mock the accusation that some noncatholic (or Catholic) here said that God is incapable of changing things' substances without changing their appearances.   If anyone here said or suggested such a thing, Who? (If that's not too mocking and ranting of a question.) Especially since Adrian says someone has.   --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Adrian Combe <adriancombe@ web.de> wrote:   It's difficult to see this rant as anything more than assuming what you have set out to prove, in the hopes that your mocking tone will distract from the opposite is already proven.  Adrian Joseph Combe IV On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:17, Aljldf Ajljfd <pineapple886@ yahoo.com> wrote: More Catholicism apologetics in action. Debating things that no one ever debated.   God doesn't do stupid unnecessary imaginary things such as 'changing what something is with out changing its outward qualities.' Nor does God need or want to.   Nor does God create God. Nor does God 'change only 'outward qualities' and then partially change the 'outward qualities' back again such as bleeding,' as is part of some Catholic mythology --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Descartes326 <descartes326@ yahoo.com> wrote:   If he can change water to wine and few fish & loaves to many, then he can change what something is with out changing its outward qualities. In any case, there are a few bloody hosts out there, next time you're visiting Europe.   Rene From: Sandra P <Roadservices@ msn.com> To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 3:58:15 PM Subject: Re: [CDF] Re: Eucharist   My goodness, Phil. We are looking for the miracle in the Bible. The water to wine miracle is recorded in the Bible. They saw water and tasted wine. So that is not the problem. Where is there in the Bible where someone says, "hey, this bread is chewy and bloody now, and the wine tastes just like blood." In His grip, Sandra ----- Original Message ----- From: "CoffeeCup" <phil.westman@ gmail.com> To: <catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:45 PM Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@. .. wrote: > > you add you add to Gods word. He never mentioned a miracle. Why do you add a miracle there. He said is is my body/blood no mention of a miracle. ===== You just don't read properly; I never said He mentioned a miracle, I said He performed one. When He changed water into wine He didn't mention He was about to perform a miracle, He just did it. In the last supper the Lord performs a miracle, he explains that he is giving His body and His blood for the disciples to eat and drink. You don't believe Him, so you reject the miracle. Unbelief is your problem jammytoots, and you know what mark 16:16 says about that. ===== > -----Original Message----- > From: "CoffeeCup" phil.westman@ ... > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:19:43 > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > Where does Jesus say a miracle will be involved. You are clearly and > knowingly adding to Gods word. You are not following Jesus exact words > ===== > When He preformed the miracle at the last supper. He said in very clear > and very plain language "this is my body" and "this is my blood" so we > believe Him and you don't. It is as stark and simple as that, you reject > Christ's words. > ===== > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "CoffeeCup" phil.westman@ > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:23:04 > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > No where does Jesus say believe the bread is bread transmuted > believe > > the wine is my blood transmuted. > > ===== > > That's because the bread and the wine are not transmuted; what a silly > > idea! The bread and the wine become - by a miracle - the body and the > > blood of Christ; it is called the real presence. We do not know how > that > > happens, but we believe the Lord so we believe that it does happen. > You > > on the other hand simply reject what Jesus says, so you walk away from > > the real presence and substitute some meaningless ceremony of symbols > > and call it "the Lord's summer" - what a travesty. > > ===== > > > > > > > -----O > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "dmacly" dmacly@ > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:16:15 > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups.. . com > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > Dana: He sure does, He says this is my body this is my blood, He > > doesnt say this is like my body or this symbolizes my body. You have > to > > twist it away to get to your theology. > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > The btead and wine are physcical reality that remain bread and > wine. > > No where does Jesus say believe the bread is bread transmuted believe > > the wine is my blood transmuted. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "dmacly" dmacly@ > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:31:44 > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > Dana: Yes He is spirit, He isn't t a symbol, and that's what you > > claim spiritual means, symbolic. So now is God symbolic since He is > > spirit? If not, then why is the Eucharist only symbolic, why cant it > be > > real and be spiritual? > > > > You might not worship His sacrifice but I do, I thank Jesus every > > day for what He has done for us and for me. > > > > > > > > Once again, you dont know what the Catholic church teaches about > the > > Eucharist. The Eucharist, the Mass is not another sacrifice, its the > one > > sacrifice made by Christ. If you are going to debate our belief, > please > > learn them first. Thank you. > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > God is a spirit. We worship in spirit a risen Lord in heaven who > > will come again. we worship a person eternally. We do not daily > worship > > his sacrifice which he did once for all. It is not repeated or > > reexperienced or rededicated etcetc. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:51:38 > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > Dana: Please dont speak for me, I believe Jesus. You cant see > > because you live and see in the carnal mind, step out from there and > see > > with your spirit, allow the Holy Spirit to show you. > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus was speaking symbolically because the literal is > > cannibalism. No one NO one takes him literally that's why it is > > symbolic. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: "factual101" <factual101@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:50 > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, "Sandra P" > > <Roadservices@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howe can we be carnally minded when you are the one talking > > carnal, and > > > > > > > we're the ones talking spiritual? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eating [yikes] Christ's body is about as carnal as you can > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > B to Sandy: It is also Biblical. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups.. . com > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:35 AM > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: You see it and are talking in the carnal mind, we > > Catholics see and > > > > > > > understand in the spirit. Our spirit sees and understands. > > Your use of the > > > > > > > word cannibalism proves my point. > > > > > > > Those around Jesus said as you did and left Him cause it was > > to hard to > > > > > > > understand, yet we see Jesus didnt go after them to explain > it > > away as > > > > > > > symbolic as you have tried. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > john 6:53 literally clearly unambiguously cannibalism. The > > catholic church > > > > > > > > eats tramuted bread and wine but Jesus said nothing about > > trasmutation he > > > > > > > > said his real body and blood. No one takes him at his > > literal word. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:43:28 > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: And where does Jesus say its symbolic? Chapter and > > verse please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not literally but symbolicly as he said=in remembrance > of > > me > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:35:27 > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: So you agree Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink > > His blood? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the defintion of cannabalism is eating human flesh > which > > is what Jesus > > > > > > > > > > said to do. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:38:35 > > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: Yes thats what the romans said when they > butchered > > the > > > > > > > > > > Christians. You are in some interesting company. > > > > > > > > > > I am against all wrong and twisted interpretation of > > Gods Word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, > jammytoots@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eating flesh is cannabalism. even Catholics do not > > take Jesus > > > > > > > > > > > literally so why be against others who don't > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > From: "dmacly" <dmacly@> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:24:32 > > > > > > > > > > > To: catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [CDF] Re: Eucharist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In catholicdebateforum @yahoogroups. com, "Sandra > P" > > > > > > > > > > > <Roadservices@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the reasons Mary totes her baby around with > > her in > > > > > > > > > > > > apparitions is > > > > > > > > > > > > that she knows Catholics understand her role to be > > meaningless > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [What if the visuals were Mary lying face > > down at the feet > > > > > > > > > > > > of Jesus, > > > > > > > > > > > > worshipping Him? What if the depictions of Mary > > were of her half > > > > > > > > > > > > naked, > > > > > > > > > > > > emaciated, and dead on your altar week after week? > > See, we love > > > > > > > > > > > > the LORD > > > > > > > > > > > > and are offended that you worship him as a > helpless > > baby, or a > > > > > > > > > > > > dead savior, > > > > > > > > > > > > or even as an inanimate object in your eucharist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But not beautiful inmmaculate Mary. She is kind, > > loving, > > > > > > > > > > > > nurturing, and > > > > > > > > > > > > even so powerful she will defeat the dragon! Not > > Jesus, you > > > > > > > > > > > > simply pity > > > > > > > > > > > > him.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana: So you are offended by scripture mentioning > the > > Christ child, > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus dying on the cross. WOW!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > Were did Mary die on the cross? Please show this in > > scripture > > > > > > > > > > > please. Please show where Mary is mentioned in > > scripture as a child. > > > > > > > > > > > You dont think Jesus has the power to let Mary or > any > > of the Saqints > > > > > > > > > > > defeat Satan, cause you limit Jesus power. You dont > > believe > > > > > > > > > > > scripture when Jesus tells us to eat His flesh and > > drink His blood > > > > > > > > > > > to have everlasting life. You are offended by what > you > > think > > > > > > > > > > > Catholics believe, not what they actually believe, > how > > SAD!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > You protestants are not bible believers, only > > Catholics truly > > > > > > > > > > > believe the Words of God. You sad protestants > believe > > what you make > > > > > > > > > > > up, what you want Jesus to be in your image. Making > > Gods Word be > > > > > > > > > > > something its not. Throwing many books out to try > and > > hide and > > > > > > > > > > > distort Gods Word. That should truly offend you, but > > you keep on > > > > > > > > > > > doing it over and over again, offending God each and > > every time. > > > > > > > > > > > REPENT!! before its to late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >