The hard saying in Jn 6,

[thessalonian]

Sad. Very sad. You guys wouldn't know truth if it came up and slapped ya. :o

 

[D46]

Nice piece of distortion and biggotry D46. Your in true form today. Tell me, which Bible was on the list of forbidden books? There was a corrupt albegesian version to my knowledge that was burned because it justified sex outside of marriage and had other corruptions. Have you been reading Boetner's book again? Must be that list in 1246 he was talking about. Problem is that there was no list of forbidden books until the 1500's and the Bible was not on it.

Not that many years ago Catholics I knew weren't allowed to read the bible in English much less Latin. Your bible was in Latin remember?

Perhaps those people you know who were forbidden from reading the Bible should have opened up the cover of the Jerusalem Bible and read what it says. It gives an indulgence for 15 minutes of Bible reading a day. This was granted by Pope Pius XII. That should cover most people you knew. I can show you many other quotes by Popes encouraging Bible reading if you like. As for Latin. The fact of the matter is that most people could not read. Those who could read latin so it was quite natural that Bibles were in Latin but they were in other languages also. There were 14 gernman translations alone before Martin Luther did his. Many in French and Swiss, etc. You KJV people get so hung up on the English language. It was a rather minor language until England took over most of the world. The Catholic Church was not against translations, just against some translators. Furthermore the Douay Rheims Bible came out about the same time as the KJV so your way overblowing the point. Once again you've shown how history can be twisted by those who hate the Catholic Church and wish to place all the worlds ills on it's back. Thanks bud. :-D

Never heard of anyone names Boetner. In his book "An Understandable History of the Bible", Rev. Samuel Gipp Th.D confirms, "The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. Jerome's translation was not used by the true Biblical Christians for almost a millennium after it was translated from corrupted manuscripts by Jerome in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death of Latin as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D."

You can try to create a smokescreen and cover up historical evidence but it is to no avail. the Bible WAS on the list of Rome's forbidden books. they knew if anyone got one of the bibles iin the OLD Latin (not the corrupt Vulgate of Jerome) they would see just how wrong the pope was in claiming to be "another Christ" and all the distortions created by previous popes. The Catholic Church ran England like Lenin ran Russia.

As for the Albigneses and Waldensians, your "forefathers" destroyed them from off the face of the earth. Call that Christianity? Considered heretics by "mother church", they were murdered by Romish soldiers who thought they were doing God a favor. Hmmmm...that sounds familar.

John 16:2 (KJV) They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

TheDouay Rheims Bible was a corrupt bible at the onset and those that were true believers wanted nothing to do with it. It had the stench of Origen within it's pages and all knew it.

The Catholic Church was not against translations, just against some translators.

Like John Wycliff and William Tyndale? Just what gave the Catholic Church the right, as though they were God, to murder anyone who wanted to translate the Bible into an understandable language? Why...because they translated the bible into a language people could understand and see for themselves what a farce the pope and his cronies were. It is an historical fact that the pope had the bones of Wycliff dug up some twenty years after his death to try him for heresy and then had his bones burned into ashes and thrown into the River Swift. Historical fact-Rome hunted down Tyndale after he escaped to Germany and burned him at the stake for translating into English. You can try to rewrite history if you want but, the facts remain.

 

[JM]

AMEN!

 

[D46]

Just to reiterate a point about the "church" and it's forbidden books., consider that infamous council that help bring it all about....Trent.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. A license? Since when its the word of God bound by a license? The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary." That was for Catholics. For Protestants, it was the flames. They had no "ordinary".

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Why do you think Rome prohibited Catholics, and others, from reading the Bible? Why do you think they killed over 50 million people and called them heretics for reading and believing the Holy Scriptures? Why did Pope Pius VII say that the Bible causes men more harm than benefit? Why would God's word cause harm? You see, the Devil knows that if you read the Bible with the intention of learning the truth, you will FLY from the Catholic religion. I believe inside every Catholic is a Protestant trying to get out!

Over hundreds of years, the Catholic religion, headed by the pope, did unimaginable cruelties to Bible-believers. They were burned, tortured, imprisoned, banished, etc. by the pope because they would only believe the Bible translated by God's true believers...not Gnostics in Egypt or heretics in Rome.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564)

The Catholic Church & Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books

TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS[1]

Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal.


Amen and Amen!! I think that says enough, and that wasn't all of it.

 

[CatholicXian]

You don't want to read cruddy Bible translations... most people object to the "scholarship" of translations like the Message, et al. (or those "magazine" Bibles)...

In the same vein, the Church doesn't want the faithful reading Bible translations that are less than faithful. Translations that are less than scholarly, etc. ARE harmful... look at the crazy ideas people claim to get from the Bible today. People without proper education and background take the Bible and read modern day scenarios into it, take things out of proper historical context, etc.



The Church was never trying to hide the Scriptures--they have been proclaimed daily in the Liturgy! Many people in the pews were not as ignorant of Latin as you want to make them out to be... (perhaps prior to the Second Vatican Council there was heightened increase in ignorance of Latin.. but the fault of that falls in the laps of those who choose to remain ignorant). The point is, you claim the Catholic Church is hiding something, and this is simply not the case--her teachings are out for all to see (and, obviously, misunderstand and misinterpret... similarly to the manner in which several people misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible).

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

The Dark Age was called the Dark Age because the common folk were kept in darkness by Rome.

Actually, the ages are all named by those that follow them. Look at the "dark ages". Theological learning. The next age, the "Enlightenment". An age of science and the refutation of faith. So, yeah. If I was an Enlightenment learner, I would call it the Dark Ages too. How could they have believed in God like that? Science is God!

But im not.

 

[AVBunyan]

Just to reiterate a point about the "church" and it's forbidden books., consider that infamous council that help bring it all about....Trent.

Amen and Amen!! I think that says enough, and that wasn't all of it.

Nice work D - Rome's own words condemn them but their blind followers don't care - they are in bondage to a Babylonian, political power system that is here to control the minds of sinners.

Just look at the nations that are under their influence - ignorance, poverty, and darkness - always been that way - Not until Rome is put down will a nation grow in grace and liberty.

Islam and Rome - 2 peas in a pod - conversion by the sword. Rome is just more careful with all the communication around to "report" their goings on. They know how to be careful.

Good bless

 

[CatholicXian]

Nice work D - Rome's own words condemn them but their blind followers don't care - they are in bondage to a Babylonian, political power system that is here to control the minds of sinners.

However, you'll preach KJV-onlyism and not see the stark similiarities between your own viewpoint of the Bible and the Council of Trent's condemnation of non-Catholic translations of the Bible?

... that'd be a double standard. Why can you condemn certain translations, but forbid the Church to do so?

 

[AVBunyan]

However, you'll preach KJV-onlyism and not see the stark similiarities between your own viewpoint of the Bible and the Council of Trent's condemnation of non-Catholic translations of the Bible?

... that'd be a double standard. Why can you condemn certain translations, but forbid the Church to do so?

Big difference - I don't "condemn" folks for reading other versions - I don't put a curse or an anathema on them for reading those books - I don't violate their consciences by seeking to keep them from them - Rome has done all the above and more.

I seek to warn folks that if they are reading anythingi but a King James Bible they are reading a watered-down, corrupt, counterfiet book that will stunt their spiritual growth. But...but...I don't seek to keep them fromo reading them. I warn against the books but I do not condemn the reader for reading them.

But - I've never or never will have someone burnt at a stake for promoting other versions.

Later

 

[CatholicXian]

Well, firstly, you don't "condemn" in that strict of a manner because you don't have the power to do so... Paul was pretty heated when Christians weren't doing as he had instructed them. Paul pronounced some anathemas himself (cf. Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 16:22). An anathema is first and foremost exclusion from the Christian community--not burning at the stake, etc. The Church is, of course, going to exclude people from the Christian community who are promoting false ideas and faulty translations of the Bible.

Interestingly enough, you won't find that burning heretics, etc. was ever a part of Church doctrine. We all sin. Even Popes, bishops, and priests. What binds us together is our forgiveness in Christ when we turn to Him.

 

[AVBunyan]

Interestingly enough, you won't find that burning heretics, etc. was ever a part of Church doctrine.

You are right - but it was Roman practice to burn my kinfolk of the past - this cannnot be denied.

 

[D46]

The Council of Trent anathematized every Christian who disagrees with any
detail of Catholic doctrine. In fact, these decrees hurled 125 curses (anathemas) against every belief and doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. It took every single doctrine that Protestants
believe, one at a time, and declared that anybody who believes even one of
them is "anathema" (officially and ritually cursed by the Catholic Church). In other words, if you weren't RC, you were cursed.

The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never been
canceled. On the contrary, the decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed
by both the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official "Catechism
of the Catholic Church" (1992).However, both the Second Vatican Council and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" confirm the decrees of the Council of Trent and these decrees contain the anathemas. So, anathemas are part of the doctrinal package-whether or not the RCC chooses to talk about them or not.
If you lived in the 16th Century these curses put you in a position of being a heretic and heretics were tortured and burned for their beliefs that were contrary to Catholic doctrine. An anathema wasn't just an "exclusion from the Christian community"...it could get you killed for what the RCC believed were heretical doctrines.

Whoever gave the RCC the right to anathematize anyone? On what authority did they possess the right to murder and torture just because others beliefs didn't coincide with the pope? But did Jesus and his Disciples kill people for saying offensive things or for not believing as they did?

They could have. Elijah called down fire on people....
"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou
that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as
Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of." (Luke 9:54-55).

Following is an example of one of the declarations of Trent: "If anyone says that
Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also
sacramentally and really, let him be anathema." ("Canons on the Most Holy
Sacrament of the Eucharist," Canon 8). What does "really" mean? Canon 1
declares that the communion bread is "truly, really and substantially" the
body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. (And if you don't believe
this, then you are anathema.)

What if the Lutherans of this country decided they were going to get a roster of every Baptist and accuse them of heretical beliefs just because they differed from theirs and had the power to question them and pronounce sentence on them for those beliefs and, once found guilty, they were confined to a firing squad as to rid society of undesirables? This is more or less what the RCC did for centuries and historical evidence backs it up. It was all about power, greed and control.

 

[CatholicXian]

Interestingly enough, you won't find that burning heretics, etc. was ever a part of Church doctrine.

You are right - but it was Roman practice to burn my kinfolk of the past - this cannnot be denied.

Roman, in that sense, is distinct from the Latin (/"Roman") rite of the Catholic Church.. And again, you are dwelling on individuals (who are sinful.. we all are), rather than the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church. Anathemas are not death sentences... they are excommunications--exclusions from the Christian community, which if you read Paul's letters you will see plenty of.





D46,
Again, go back and read the Epistles of St. Paul. (and pull out a Greek New Testament)... Paul hurled some anathemas as well (see my previous post for some examples). By what authority? The authority given him from God, same as the bishops of the Catholic Church. So unless you want to take issue with Paul's pronouncement of anathemas to those early Christians who were not following what he had taught them (and in a similiar vein, the bishops at the Council of Trent, or any other Ecumenical Council, pronounced anathemas as Paul did to those Christians (in this case, Protestants) who had split off from the Catholic Church and were rejecting that which the Apostles had handed on in faith).. then I'm not sure what the problem is?

 

[AVBunyan]

You are right - but it was Roman practice to burn my kinfolk of the past - this cannnot be denied.

Roman, in that sense, is distinct from the Latin (/"Roman") rite of the Catholic Church..

Let me be real clear - Roman Catholics under the blessing and order of the Roman Catholic church burned saints for disbelieving many of Roman Catholic doctrines.

Is that clear enough for you? :o

 

[CatholicXian]

You are right - but it was Roman practice to burn my kinfolk of the past - this cannnot be denied.

Roman, in that sense, is distinct from the Latin (/"Roman") rite of the Catholic Church..

Let me be real clear - Roman Catholics under the blessing and order of the Roman Catholic church burned saints for disbelieving many of Roman Catholic doctrines.

Is that clear enough for you? :o

Christians aren't perfect. You won't find killing non-believers as a practice in Catholic doctrine. Protestant Christians have done some pretty rotten things to non-Protestant Christians--even killing. Look at northern Ireland, look at history... Catholics weren't the only ones. Does that make it okay? No, of course not. But you can't act as though the Catholic Church was the only church running around getting rid of heretics.

And if pointing out faults/sins in others is the best you've got, well, it's not very convincing. Everyone sins. No big surprise there.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Christians aren't perfect.

2. You won't find killing non-believers as a practice in Catholic doctrine.

3. Protestant Christians have done some pretty rotten things to non-Protestant Christians--even killing.

4. Look at northern Ireland, look at history... Catholics weren't the only ones.

1. I know that but I'm referring to your church as an institution. One of your popes struck a nice medal to a French king for murdering over 50,000 Hugenuets. Nice work, huh?

2. You are decieved...

3. Yes, some apostate non-bible believers have - maybe 50,000 to your church's 15-25,000,000! :o

4. Blah, blah, blah - heard it all before - yes that happened and it was wrong but what about your bloody history for almost 1500 years? Please review #3 :o :o :o

Yes, some of us have read more than the newspapers and watched TV. :-?

Later

 

[phatcatholic]

in order to bring this trainwreck back on topic, i request a point-by-point rebuttal to the following:

• the first thing to note about the "Eucharistic Discourse" (as it is often called) from John 6 is that it occurs on the eve of the Passover, when the lambs are slaughtered and eaten (cf. John 6:4). this adds greater significance to his words and further points to him as the paschal lamb that must be eaten. after this, he begins to gradually call the Jews to a greater act of faith. first, Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes. this points to the Eucharist in many ways. Jesus will be their nourishment and they will never grow hungry. also noteworthy is the fact that the account of the miracle begins with almost the same words as those which the synoptics and st. paul use to describe the institution of the Eucharist (cf. Mat 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-24). this indicates that the miracle is a symbol of the Eucharist, about which our Lord will speak shortly. upon this miracle, the people begin to believe, but their beleif is imperfect b/c they see him as an earthly savior and wish to make him king (cf. John 6:14-15).
  
  from this act of faith, he calls for one still greater. next, he compares himself to the manna which came from heaven. but, while the manna nourished for a time, if they will only believe in him, the true bread, they will be filled forever (cf. John 6:32-35). this is no small claim, to compare oneself to that very bread that saved the Israelites. but this is what Jesus has done........and on top of that, asking that they believe in Him as their spiritual savior. yet again, the Jews show their lack of faith (cf. John 6:36,41). but, Jesus is not done, for he demands the most sublime act of faith. and what is this sublime act of faith, that will weed out the unbelievers and even cause some of his very disciples to depart from him? it is to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
  
  he begins by saying that this bread from heaven which they will eat is his flesh (cf. John 6:51). the greek word used for "eat" here is favgomai (or "phago"), which means "to eat or consume." in response, the Jews obviously take him literally; they "strove among themselves" (John 6:52). if he was still speaking metaphorically, would this not have been the time to clarify himself? afterall, he wasn't getting the act of faith he was looking for and it seemed to be b/c of how they were understanding him. also, we know that in many similar instances, Jesus explains himself to the people, or at least to the 12 on the side (cf. Mat 16:11-12; Mark 4:34; John 3:3-11) whenever he intends a meaning other than the one they understood.
  
  but, he does not do that here. instead, he is even more persistent. starting with vs. 54, we find Jesus telling the crowd 4 more times that they must eat his flesh and 2 more times that they must drink his blood:
  
  54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
  55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
  56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
  57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
  58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
  
  despite using repitition to drive the point home, he even uses a new, much harsher and more explicit word for "eat." in these instances, the greek word is trwvgw (or "trogo") which means "to gnaw, crunch, or chew." while "phago" may have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. it occurs only two other times outside this discourse (cf. Mat 24:38 and John 13:18) and in both cases means a literal eating. it is undeniable what Jesus is asking of them. they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
  
  vs. 55 from this passage is also quite significant. for one, we are to eat, not his "body" (sw'ma, or "soma"), which often has a metaphorical meaning in the bible, but his flesh. the greek word here is savrx (or "sarx") and it is always used for literal flesh in the bible (proof here). also, his flesh is meat indeed, his blood drink indeed. the greek word here is ajlhqw'ß (or "alethos"). it means "truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly" and Jesus uses it to dispel any doubts concerning the reality of His flesh and blood as being food and drink.
  
  in response to this they walk away, including many of his very beloved disciples. but even now, even when he has lost many of his followers, he does not back down. he turns to the faithful remnant, who acknowledge that His is "a hard saying" (John 6:60), and says to them, "Do you take offense at this?" (John 6:61). "Do you also wish to go away?" (John 6:67). he does not intend to retract his statement or to explain it away. instead, he explains to them why they don't believe it:
  
  61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
  62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
  63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
  64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him
  
  it is often asserted here that, by saying that his words are spirit and life that he is meaning to clarify that he was only speaking symbolically. i find no merit in this claim. for one, nowhere in the bible is the word "spirit" meant to mean "symbol" and nowhere else is something said to be symbolic b/c it is spiritual. instead, what we find here is a comparison between the spirit and the flesh that is often used throughout the bible to mean one thing: human wisdom vs. supernatural faith. both Jesus and Paul use this terminology quite often to point out that we must go beyond the natural to comprehend the supernatural (cf. John 3:6; Mark 14:38; 1 Cor 2:14; 3:3; Rom 8:5; Gal 5:17).
  
  in response to all of this, we find the words of Peter in one of my favorite passages from the Bible:
  
  68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
  69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
  
  here Jesus has finally received that most sublime act of faith that he requires from every one of us.

hopefully, this will suffice as an introductory defense of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. sorry it was so long. believe it or not, much more could be said ;) btw, when i say "point-by-point rebuttal" i mean, quote every paragraph, or at least every point, and prove to me that it is erroneous.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[D46]

OK...I'm your huckleberry! I think everyone here knows what the word "eat" means. :roll: How absurd to think that any man using witchcraft, sorcery, or divination of any style could call the King of Glory from Heaven and contain him in a cracker...nonesense paganism and definitely not Christian. What happens if a mouse gets hold of this cracker Jesus you propagate? Is he then saved as well?

John 6:53
Verses 53-55. In these verses Jesus repeats what he had in substance said before...

Except ye eat the flesh, etc. He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man--his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are "changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord." So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since. The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord's Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death--his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin--he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Matthew 8:11; 26:29; Luke 14:15.

It's amazing how some organizations jerk several scriptures out of context to build an entire doctrine around it.

 

[phatcatholic]

D46..............was a point-by-point rebuttal too much to ask for? maybe so, but i want to wait and see if anyone takes me up on it before i respond to ur post.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[D46]

D46..............was a point-by-point rebuttal too much to ask for? maybe so, but i want to wait and see if anyone takes me up on it before i respond to ur post.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

I have no further interest in this...no response required. Watch out for the hair and toe nails!!