A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)


Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:24 pm
Reply
Protesting what?

Like this post
What are the main objections that Protestants have against Catholicism today?

I've heard that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is popular, but the Pope has been spending quite a lot of time apologizing for mistakes made so that doctrine seems to have already bitten the dust.

Then there's "call no man father", but the context seems to indicate that any term of respect is frowned upon by Christ. Why would Protestants begrudge Catholics using this terminology when they use it themselves with their own doctors, "reverends", etc.?

What else?

I've also noticed that Protestants seem to agree with a lot more than they disagree with, especially denominations like Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and ironically, Lutheran.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:54 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
[Replying to shnarkle]

Quote:
What are the main objections that Protestants have against Catholicism today?


They are usually the same old same old, but typically stem from not actually knowing and or understanding what it is the Catholic Church teaches or does.

For example it isn’t uncommon for some to claim the Catholics worship statues – which is untrue and silly. Some say Catholics consider Mary equivalent to God, but that too is incorrect. Then you have those who say Catholics practice cannibalism in believing in the Real Presence, but that too is a lie and simply represents a lack of knowledge of Catholicism. Then many will claim the Church teaches things not in the Bible, but how quickly they forget it is actually the Church that compiled the Bible AND no where in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is our authority. In fact, the Bible says the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.

So, again, when it comes to attacking the Catholic Church it always stems from trying to justify or rationalize why one isn’t Catholic or to justify one’s own erroneous religious views.

Quote:
I've heard that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is popular, but the Pope has been spending quite a lot of time apologizing for mistakes made so that doctrine seems to have already bitten the dust.


The Pope has never apologized for any official teaching on matters of faith and morals from the Catholic Church. Nor could he – as they are truth and not something that can be changed. Nor should any of them be changed as they are true, beautiful, and wise. So, no the teaching that the Church is infallible when it comes to teachings on matters of faith and morals has not bitten the dust. It is still very much well and alive. And quite frankly, it would be unreasonable, unscriptural, and illogical to think Christ’s Church can err in these matters – what the heck would be the purpose of the Church?

Quote:
Then there's "call no man father", but the context seems to indicate that any term of respect is frowned upon by Christ. Why would Protestants begrudge Catholics using this terminology when they use it themselves with their own doctors, "reverends", etc.?


Indeed. This criticism was as empty as the first one you suggested.

Quote:
What else?


Well, many like to say because of corruption or the clergy sex abuse scandal they couldn’t be part of that. Of course, even in Jesus’ day there were corrupt individuals (some even chosen by Him personally, like Judas), but that didn’t mean we are to leave His Church because of them.


Quote:
I've also noticed that Protestants seem to agree with a lot more than they disagree with, especially denominations like Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and ironically, Lutheran.


Yes. And the more one delves into the faith they end up finding themselves more and more attracted to truth. They often catch themselves thinking wow, the Catholic Church seems to have gotten that one right too. And the more they read and learn they find out how beautiful the Church’s teachings are, especially when it comes to salvation, God’s love and mercy, the Sacraments, marriage, love, sex, etc. While there is some decent stuff out there in the Episcopalian or Lutheran or Baptist churches I’m afraid to say it pales in comparison to what we find in Christ’s 2000 year old Church.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:01 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
shnarkle wrote:

What are the main objections that Protestants have against Catholicism today?

I've heard that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is popular, but the Pope has been spending quite a lot of time apologizing for mistakes made so that doctrine seems to have already bitten the dust.

Then there's "call no man father", but the context seems to indicate that any term of respect is frowned upon by Christ. Why would Protestants begrudge Catholics using this terminology when they use it themselves with their own doctors, "reverends", etc.?

What else?

I've also noticed that Protestants seem to agree with a lot more than they disagree with, especially denominations like Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and ironically, Lutheran.


You're plainly wrong. Protestantism and Lutheranism are one and same! They are the same church. Catholicism is objected to, traditionally, even though we are very good friends today and by modernity, there may be little or no difference in practicing religious life, by the work of Martin Luther way back then. The poster at Worms.

Link at Wikipedia, Martin Luther: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:28 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
[quote="RightReason"]


Quote:
it isn’t uncommon for some to claim the Catholics worship statues – which is untrue and silly.


While it may be untrue, and silly, it is nonetheless one way to discern whether you've wandered into a Catholic church or a Protestant one. I think it's also interesting to note that when Paul refers to Christ as "the image of the invisible god", the word translated as "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is of course where we get the word icon. While it is practically synonymous with "idol", it really isn't from a biblical perspective because these two terms are only synonymous when it comes to "things", and "the word" and "God" are not "things".

So an icon is a representation, while an idol is the god that is objectively worshipped. The Catholics take a lot of pointless heat for their iconography, but at the same time, I can't help but wonder what we would all think of Christ if Paul had decided to refer to him as the "idol" of the invisible god instead. Most wouldn't look at Christ any differently, but given that Paul didn't use that term, it looks more like Paul may be pointing out that Christ represents God rather than Christ being God.

Quote:
Some say Catholics consider Mary equivalent to God, but that too is incorrect.


I have heard very few people make that claim. The only people who I've ever heard make that claim are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their literature also makes the same claim when it compares Jesus and Mary to pagan iconography.

The claim that most Protestants make is that Catholics pray to Mary as well as Joseph, and the rest of the saints. They point out that only Christ is mediator between God and humanity.

Quote:
Then you have those who say Catholics practice cannibalism in believing in the Real Presence, but that too is a lie and simply represents a lack of knowledge of Catholicism.


I've heard this claim that Catholics believe in the "Real Presence" as well, but I don't know when that became a tenet of Catholicism. I was always told that the real presence came about within Protestantism, especially with Luther's idea to switch from transubstantiation to consubstantiation. Real Presence was something that pointed out that Christ's real presence existed in the bread and wine rather than any actual transubstantiation.

They're both odd doctrines due to the fact that when Christ says "This is my body", the Greek articles don't match their respective nouns. This is a tell tale sign that a metaphor is being employed. Some refer to it as a Euphony, but this is speculative at best. The figure Metaphor states emphatically that "this IS that". It is also known as "Representation". In other words, it is no different than saying, "This represents my body". The verb is also not the correct one to indicate a change taking place. The authors used "eimi" rather than "gignomai" which actually means to change.

Quote:
Then many will claim the Church teaches things not in the Bible, but how quickly they forget it is actually the Church that compiled the Bible AND no where in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is our authority. In fact, the Bible says the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.


I think it is a given that not only the Catholic church, but most Protestant churches teach a few things that are not to be found anywhere in the bible. The most notable being profaning the Sabbath, usury, ignoring the dietary laws, and the 7th commandment.

The Catholic church used to boast about the fact that there is no scriptural support for profaning the Sabbath as proof that only the Catholic church had the authority to change God's laws. The Protestant churches knew that, or they wouldn't ignore the Sabbath, or their own doctrine of sola scriptura.

Quote:
So, again, when it comes to attacking the Catholic Church it always stems from trying... to justify one’s own erroneous religious views.


I think there's something to their double standard. They can see it in their Catholic brethren, but not in themselves, e.g. "call no man father", divorce, sola scriptura, etc.

Quote:
Quote:
I've heard that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is popular, but the Pope has been spending quite a lot of time apologizing for mistakes made so that doctrine seems to have already bitten the dust.

The Pope has never apologized for any official teaching on matters of faith and morals from the Catholic Church. Nor could he – as they are truth and not something that can be changed.


I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If there has ever been a pope that is likely to apologize on official teaching or matters of faith or morals, it's him. If you're saying that it automatically negates him as a legitimate Pope, I can see your argument, but to say he couldn't do something like that doesn't make sense to me. Popes have done some pretty weird things in the past so I don't see how it couldn't happen, especially with a Jesuit.

Quote:
it would be unreasonable, unscriptural, and illogical to think Christ’s Church can err in these matters


I'll give you one example right off the top of my head. Christ came to fulfill the Mosaic law, and one of the laws deals with usury. A Jew could not lend money to a fellow Jew at interest. It would be no different than charging interest to a relative. He could lend to foreigners at interest though, although it wasn't mandated. The only time it was mandated was when God led Israel into the Promised land. They were told to utterly destroy the inhabitants, but they neglected that task so God then told them to engage in usury. It was an instrument of war for their enemies. When Jesus comes along He points out that one should love their enemies as themselves, and no one charges themselves interest on a loan.

So far from following Christ's own instructions, the Catholic church along with her daughters not only suggests that one may lend to their enemies, but to their friends and relatives as well. It is actually against the law NOT to lend money at interest even to family members in the US. This isn't a Catholic thing, but Christians have no objection to it.

Quote:
Well, many like to say because of corruption or the clergy sex abuse scandal they couldn’t be part of that. Of course, even in Jesus’ day there were corrupt individuals (some even chosen by Him personally, like Judas), but that didn’t mean we are to leave His Church because of them.


This is an excellent example of their double standard. The Catholic church doesn't have a monopoly on sexual abuse or sexual scandals. When Protestant churches have their turn in the spotlight very few people leave, or return to the Catholic church.


Quote:
Quote:
I've also noticed that Protestants seem to agree with a lot more than they disagree with, especially denominations like Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and ironically, Lutheran.


Yes. And the more one delves into the faith they end up finding themselves more and more attracted to truth. They often catch themselves thinking wow, the Catholic Church seems to have gotten that one right too. And the more they read and learn they find out how beautiful the Church’s teachings are, especially when it comes to salvation, God’s love and mercy, the Sacraments, marriage, love, sex, etc.


I was thinking more along the lines of teachings that aren't biblical or perhaps even heretical, but there are also things they both get right as well. Although where I really see stuff that blows my mind is from Catholic and Protestant authors rather than in church doctrines. The examples are numerous, but most noteworthy to me are people like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Raimon Panikkar, etc.

I think it is ironic that someone like C.K. Chesterton didn't convert to Catholicism until he was relatively old. I think it was only about 10 or 15 years before he died, and yet if one reads his earlier stuff, one can't help but assume he was Catholic. He was Catholic in his heart before he was officially Catholic.

It's also ironic that he had such a profound influence over someone like C.S. Lewis who initially admired Chesterton, but couldn't comprehend how someone that intelligent could be a Christian. It was only after his close association with Chesterton and his writings that Lewis became the completely converted Christian that we all know today.

Quote:
While there is some decent stuff out there in the Episcopalian or Lutheran or Baptist churches I’m afraid to say it pales in comparison to what we find in Christ’s 2000 year old Church.


I disagree. There's stuff being written by Catholics now that is incredibly mind blowing, but the Catholic church practically frowns upon it. There's also plenty of material out by Protestant writers as well that is really on the cutting edge. That's where Christ is, and it's why the gospel is always "news".

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:33 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post (1): ttruscott
[quote="Aetixintro"]

Quote:
Quote:
I've also noticed that Protestants seem to agree with a lot more than they disagree with, especially denominations like Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and ironically, Lutheran.


You're plainly wrong. Protestantism and Lutheranism are one and same!


Sorry, but not all Protestants are Lutherans. Calvin, Zwingli, etc. all protested Catholicism. Presbyterians are also Protestants, but they're clearly not Lutherans. Baptists look at Lutherans and Episcopalians practically as heretics, and just as damned as their Catholic brethren. Then there are SDA. JW's, etc. who look at all other Protestants as no different than Catholics. Yet they're also Protestants.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:11 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
[Replying to shnarkle]

Quote:


Quote:
it isn’t uncommon for some to claim the Catholics worship statues – which is untrue and silly.


While it may be untrue, and silly, it is nonetheless one way to discern whether you've wandered into a Catholic church or a Protestant one.


That we have statues is very different from worshipping statues. Do you have photographs of your loved ones? Do you worship those photographs? Do you attribute power to the photographs?


Quote:
The Catholics take a lot of pointless heat for their iconography


Yes, we do from those who don’t get it or are purposely looking for something to critique.

Quote:
Quote:
Some say Catholics consider Mary equivalent to God, but that too is incorrect.


I have heard very few people make that claim. The only people who I've ever heard make that claim are the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The claim that most Protestants make is that Catholics pray to Mary as well as Joseph, and the rest of the saints. They point out that only Christ is mediator between God and humanity.


They do both – claim Catholics deify Mary and claim we pray to her when we should just go to God directly. Both criticisms show a lack of understanding of our faith. Catholics do not consider Mary God. And yes, we pray to her to ask her intercession because Scripture itself tells us we can. Do protestants not ask others to pray for them? Scripture tells us the prayers of a righteous man are efficacious. Mary is pretty righteous.


Quote:
Quote:
Then you have those who say Catholics practice cannibalism in believing in the Real Presence, but that too is a lie and simply represents a lack of knowledge of Catholicism.


I've heard this claim that Catholics believe in the "Real Presence" as well, but I don't know when that became a tenet of Catholicism.



Prior to the crucifixion. Jesus told His followers Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in it. He told them His body is real food and blood is real drink.

Quote:
I was always told that the real presence came about within Protestantism


You were told incorrectly. Also, Luther himself believed in the Real Presence. It was taught from the beginning of the establishment of the Church.

Quote:
They're both odd doctrines due to the fact that when Christ says "This is my body", the Greek articles don't match their respective nouns. This is a tell tale sign that a metaphor is being employed.


Huh? The exact opposite is shown. Christ did not say, This represents my body. He said, this IS my body. He also, repeated several times saying Truly, truly, I say to you my body is real food and my blood real drink. And those He told were offended. Who the heck would be offended if He were speaking metaphorically? The audience He was speaking to knew He was speaking literally and we are told they said, That is a hard saying – who can accept it. But Jesus didn’t clarify and say no, no, yall got it wrong – I’m just being poetic. Nope. He actually doubled down on the exact thing He said in the first place, using even more real adjectives to describe what He wanted His followers to do. He told them they would need to chew or [/i]gnaw[/i] His flesh – not exactly the words someone would use if He were trying to be symbolic.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've heard that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is popular, but the Pope has been spending quite a lot of time apologizing for mistakes made so that doctrine seems to have already bitten the dust.

The Pope has never apologized for any official teaching on matters of faith and morals from the Catholic Church. Nor could he – as they are truth and not something that can be changed.


I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If there has ever been a pope that is likely to apologize on official teaching or matters of faith or morals, it's him.


Huh? What are you talking about?


Quote:
If you're saying that it automatically negates him as a legitimate Pope


Nope, not saying that – have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
but to say he couldn't do something like that doesn't make sense to me.


What doesn’t make sense? Why would a Pope have to apologize for an inerrant truth proclaimed by her? Truth does not change and the Church has not taught something that it later went back and changed their position on, so when it comes to official Church teachings on matters of faith and morals, the Church has never nor would ever have to apologize.


Quote:
Popes have done some pretty weird things in the past so I don't see how it couldn't happen, especially with a Jesuit.


You do know that Popes are fallible human beings and can of course make mistakes or do something wrong UNLESS he is speaking ex cathedra.


Quote:
Quote:
it would be unreasonable, unscriptural, and illogical to think Christ’s Church can err in these matters


I'll give you one example right off the top of my head. Christ came to fulfill the Mosaic law, and one of the laws deals with usury.



You have no idea what you are talking about and have gotten it completely wrong. Christ did not come to fulfill the Mosaic Law. Christ came to fulfill the moral law. We no longer must abide by Mosaic Law. You have been ill informed.



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've also noticed that Protestants seem to agree with a lot more than they disagree with, especially denominations like Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and ironically, Lutheran.


Yes. And the more one delves into the faith they end up finding themselves more and more attracted to truth. They often catch themselves thinking wow, the Catholic Church seems to have gotten that one right too. And the more they read and learn they find out how beautiful the Church’s teachings are, especially when it comes to salvation, God’s love and mercy, the Sacraments, marriage, love, sex, etc.


I was thinking more along the lines of teachings that aren't biblical or perhaps even heretical, but there are also things they both get right as well.



A teaching does not have to be Biblical. We are called to follow Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition (the Church). Something does not have to be specifically mentioned in the Bible. So, that is a mistaken understanding. Also, the Catholic Church has no teachings that are heretical because Christ promised to remain with His Church and in doing so has preserved her from being wrong in her teachings on matters of faith and morals.

Quote:
Although where I really see stuff that blows my mind is from Catholic and Protestant authors rather than in church doctrines.


Yes, lots of awesome things from some really good authors, but their awesomeness is almost always because it is a reflection of some particular church teaching or truth.


Quote:
It's also ironic that he had such a profound influence over someone like C.S. Lewis who initially admired Chesterton, but couldn't comprehend how someone that intelligent could be a Christian.


Why is that ironic? Or surprising? Truth is attractive. We are all drawn to it. It has a pull on us, even when we don’t want it to.

Quote:
While there is some decent stuff out there in the Episcopalian or Lutheran or Baptist churches I’m afraid to say it pales in comparison to what we find in Christ’s 2000 year old Church.


I disagree. There's stuff being written by Catholics now that is incredibly mind blowing, but the Catholic church practically frowns upon it.


Example please.

Quote:
There's also plenty of material out by Protestant writers as well that is really on the cutting edge.


Riiiight . . . . timeless truth will always appear to some to be cutting edge. A friend of mine just told me how her college age daughter was kill’n it in all her English and writing classes. Her professors would write comments on her papers like what an amazing insight and do you mind if I share your thoughts with the others to which her daughter just laughs and says I don’t think they realize everything I’m saying is from Catholic teaching. She’s like this stuff has been around for ages, but these teachers are obviously hearing it for the first time. They are thinking her quite wise and that they’ve never thought about something that way before. She and her daughter just laugh at how hungry people are for the truth and how beautiful it is when we hear it. We Catholics have been cutting edge for over 2000 years now. Being retro is totally cool ya know.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:48 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
Quote:
Quote:
While it may be untrue, and silly, it is nonetheless one way to discern whether you've wandered into a Catholic church or a Protestant one.


That we have statues is very different from worshipping statues.


True, but then so what? My comment wasn't suggesting that Catholics worship statues. However, I don't know how much real difference there is between worshipping and adorning those same statues. How about kissing the feet of a statue of Jesus on the cross? That's seems to be getting pretty close to a fine line.

Quote:
Do you have photographs of your loved ones?


I don't decorate them, or parade around my home with them on an annual basis.

Quote:
Do you worship those photographs? Do you attribute power to the photographs?


Nope, but Catholics do with their relics as well as their statues.


Quote:
Quote:
The Catholics take a lot of pointless heat for their iconography


Yes, we do from those who don’t get it or are purposely looking for something to critique.


Well, I would hope they had a good purpose in lodging a critique, wouldn't you? I already pointed out that the whole point of iconography was to provide a representation rather than a form of idolatry, but this only spotlights a problem with all of Christian teaching on Christ's status as the second person of the Trinity. In other words, if an icon truly only represents someone rather than being that person, then Christ represents God rather than being God. That's not me looking for something to critique. That's just a logical conclusion.

Quote:
Quote:
Then you have those who say Catholics practice cannibalism in believing in the Real Presence, but that too is a lie and simply represents a lack of knowledge of Catholicism.



Quote:
Quote:
I've heard this claim that Catholics believe in the "Real Presence" as well, but I don't know when that became a tenet of Catholicism.



Prior to the crucifixion. Jesus told His followers Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in it. He told them His body is real food and blood is real drink.


Sounds like cannibalism.

Quote:
I was always told that the real presence came about within Protestantism


You were told incorrectly. Also, Luther himself believed in the Real Presence.[/quote]

That's what I was told by Lutherans.

Quote:
Christ did not say, This represents my body. He said, this IS my body.


No, as I pointed out before, he most certainly didn't say a piece of bread was his body.

Quote:
"This is my body" (touto esti to soma mou). This is no more literal than to say "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." or The field is the world". He is speaking figuratively.

He is using the figure Metaphor; or Representation. Which is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation. From the Greek-metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From (meta), beyond or over, and (Pherein), to carry. The Metaphor declares that one thing IS the other.

The Metaphor is not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, and not in either of the two nouns: and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.

In our example, the pronoun, "this" (touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with "body" (swma), which is neuter, and not with bread (aptos, artos), which is masculine. This is always the case in Metaphors. Here are a few other examples to illustrate.
In Zech. 5:8, "This is wickedness." Here, "this" (fem.) does not agree with "ephah" (to which it refers), which is neuter, but with "wickedness, " which is feminine.
In Zech. 5:3, "This is the curse." "This" (fem.) agrees with "curse", which is feminine, and not with "flying roll", which is neuter, (to which it refers).
In Matt.13:38, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." Here, "these" (masc.) agrees with "children of the kingdom" (masc.), and not with seed, which is neuter.
What this is showing is that in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the figure lies only in the verb.

"This is (i.e., represents) my body," is an undoubted Metaphor. "He took the cup...saying...this is my blood." Here we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, "this" refers to "bread", and it is claimed that "is" means changed into the "body" of Christ. In the latter, "this" refers to "the cup", but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into "blood". The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is proof that the former is wrong.
In 1Cor. 11:25 we read "this cup is the new covenant." How does this "cup" become transubstantiated into a "covenant"?

Additionally, the verb, (eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of signifying, amounting to. e.g. Mt.9:13, 'But go ye and learn what that means"
Mt.12:7, "But if ye had known what this means".
Acts. 10:7, "Now, while Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean"
On the other hand, if an actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which plainly and actually says so; for the verb "to be" never has or conveys any idea of such a change.

The usual verb to express such a change is (ginomai), which means to be or become. Mk.9:39, 'There was(i.e. became) a great calm,"
Lk.4:3, "Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread."
John 16:20, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." This was a real transubstantiation.
If Jesus had meant that the bread had become His body, that is the verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but instead used the simple verb (eimi), i.e., "is" proves conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was intended.
From all this it is clear that the words, "This is my body" means "This (bread) represents my body."


Thus the Catholic church has been shown to teach false doctrine, and not just any false doctrine, but one of the central and defining doctrines of the Catholic church. QED


Quote:
He also, repeated several times saying Truly, truly, I say to you my body is real food and my blood real drink. And those He told were offended. Who the heck would be offended if He were speaking metaphorically?


So you're saying he was condoning cannibalism

Quote:
The audience He was speaking to knew He was speaking literally and we are told they said, That is a hard saying – who can accept it. But Jesus didn’t clarify and say no, no, yall got it wrong – I’m just being poetic. Nope. He actually doubled down on the exact thing He said in the first place, using even more real adjectives to describe what He wanted His followers to do. He told them they would need to chew or [/i]gnaw[/i] His flesh – not exactly the words someone would use if He were trying to be symbolic.


Okay, so you believe the early church engaged in literal cannibalism. Got it.

Quote:
Quote:
If there has ever been a pope that is likely to apologize on official teaching or matters of faith or morals, it's him.


Huh? What are you talking about?


I'm talking about the fact that liberal Jesuits know no boundaries that can't be crossed.

Quote:
Why would a Pope have to apologize for an inerrant truth proclaimed by her?


I didn't claim any need. I simply pointed out that the possibility of a Pope apologizing or changing cannon law to equip herself to deal with the times doesn't seem unusual or unlikely, especially if the Pope is a Jesuit.

Quote:
Truth does not change and the Church has not taught something that it later went back and changed their position on, so when it comes to official Church teachings on matters of faith and morals, the Church has never nor would ever have to apologize.


Again, I'm not suggesting that the church ever would have to apologize. I'm simply pointing out that I wouldn't be surprised it a Jesuit Pope would do that.


Quote:

You do know that Popes are fallible human beings and can of course make mistakes or do something wrong UNLESS he is speaking ex cathedra.


Yeah, we got that. Again, it wouldn't surprise me to see Francis apologize ex cathedra.

Quote:
Christ did not come to fulfill the Mosaic Law. Christ came to fulfill the moral law. We no longer must abide by Mosaic Law.


A distinction with no effective difference. Christ says, "love your enemies as yourself". This is right from the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law stipulates that when you see your enemies' ox in a ditch you must help him get it out. That's the moral law. That's the Mosaic law.

If you're enemy asks you to lend him money, you may not charge him interest because you're now supposed to treat him as a fellow Jew; a brother. The Catholic church doesn't seem to agree, does it?

Quote:
the Catholic Church has no teachings that are heretical because Christ promised to remain with His Church and in doing so has preserved her from being wrong in her teachings on matters of faith and morals.


Fallacy of Begging the Question

Quote:
Quote:
It's also ironic that he had such a profound influence over someone like C.S. Lewis who initially admired Chesterton, but couldn't comprehend how someone that intelligent could be a Christian.


Why is that ironic? Or surprising?
Because Lewis was basically an atheist. He looked at Christianity as belief in fairy tales. It's ironic and surprising because Chesterton had such a huge influence over Lewis' conversion, but not quite enough to convert Lewis to Catholicism. Why?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:58 am
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
[Replying to shnarkle]

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
While it may be untrue, and silly, it is nonetheless one way to discern whether you've wandered into a Catholic church or a Protestant one.


That we have statues is very different from worshipping statues.


I don't know how much real difference there is between worshipping and adorning those same statues.


Then like I said, you and many others simply don’t get it. There are many things touched on in this thread that would each warrant their own thread to combat the anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda that has been repeated so often now people aren’t even interested in the truth anymore. I have corrected all of these errors in thinking multiple times on this forum, only for the very same person who I explained it to to repeat the lies again in their very next thread. People typically are not really interested to learn more or try to understand. They already have their minds made up being victims themselves of if you repeat the same lie over and over again, people come to accept it as truth. So be it.

I will respond to some of these repeated folklore, but like I said, each warrant their own thread and I have already debunked all of these many times before. Those who have ears let them here. . . .


Quote:
Quote:
Do you have photographs of your loved ones?


I don't decorate them, or parade around my home with them on an annual basis.


Lots of people do. Lots of people put flowers next to their dead spouse’s picture or kiss the photograph before they go to bed or run their hands across the frame when they enter their home. We are human beings who have 5 senses. We respond to sight, touch, etc. Pictures of our loved ones make us feel closer to them and keep their memories alive so we can recall past things we have learned from them, etc. It doesn’t mean we think our dead spouse or dead mother is God. It doesn’t even mean we are idolizing them in a sinful way by thinking they are just as important as God (unless of course someone is doing that and then that would be wrong.) Of course that can be done whether someone is dead or alive. Lots of people idolize living human beings – giving them time, attention, and glory that they should be giving God – making them into false gods. And that is wrong. But that is not what people who hang up pictures or representations of other human beings are doing. There is nothing inherently wrong about keeping memories of our loved ones. Unless of course one needs to feel better about their own faith by suggesting someone else’s is inferior.


Quote:
Quote:
Do you worship those photographs? Do you attribute power to the photographs?


Nope, but Catholics do with their relics as well as their statues.


<sigh> More talk about something you seem to know little about.

******

What they dislike is the mixing of spirit and matter, the gift of something spiritual—grace—by means of physical things. That, after all, is what the sacraments are. This tendency to drive a wedge between spirit and matter stems from age-old heresies known as Dualism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism.


Many non-Catholics wrongly believe that the Church teaches that these sacramentals actually provide grace. But one of the biggest problems for non-Catholics are the relics of saints—the bones, ashes, clothing, or personal possessions of the apostles and other holy people that are held in reverence by the Church and sometimes associated with miraculous healings and other acts of God.


The Church does not claim that relics have “magical powers.”


The sacramental system is the opposite of magic. In magic, something material is regarded as the cause of something spiritual; in other words, a lower cause is expected to produce a higher effect.


The sacraments (and, derivatively, sacramentals and relics) don’t compel God to work in a certain way. Their use depends on God, who established their efficacy, so their effects are divine, not natural, in their origin. It is God who sanctions the use of relics; it is not a matter of men “overpowering” God through their own powers or the powers of nature, which is what magic amounts to.

When Jesus healed the blind man in John 9:1-7, did the Lord use magic mud and spittle? Was it actually a magic potion he mixed in the clay, or was it simply that Jesus saw fit to use matter in association with the conferral of his grace? The Lord is no dualist. He made matter, he loves matter, and he had no qualms about becoming matter himself to accomplish our redemption.

In the fourth century the great biblical scholar, Jerome, declared, “We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are” (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907). `


The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: “So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet” (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!

Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). “And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/relics




Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then you have those who say Catholics practice cannibalism in believing in the Real Presence, but that too is a lie and simply represents a lack of knowledge of Catholicism.




Quote:
Quote:
I've heard this claim that Catholics believe in the "Real Presence" as well, but I don't know when that became a tenet of Catholicism.



Prior to the crucifixion. Jesus told His followers Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in it. He told them His body is real food and blood is real drink.


Sounds like cannibalism.


Because you want it to. I have refuted this nonsensical complaint numerous times, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it here. Why don’t you ask yourself what cannibalism is? Cannibalism is the killing of one’s enemy and then eating his dead human body. Jesus is true God and true man. He isn’t simply a human being, is He? He’s divine. He also isn’t dead, is He? I don’t know about you, but I believe Jesus is very much well and alive. And finally, He isn’t our enemy. He has given Himself for us.


And I guess a little sidenote here: How do you not see yourself as we read in Scripture like those who left Jesus that day with your accusation that receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is cannibalism? That is exactly what they thought when they heard His words. That’s why they were so offended. They were outraged. This guy is asking us to eat Him? And yet, Jesus didn’t say no, no you got it all wrong – that’s not what I’m saying. No. He said, yes that is what I’m saying and if you trust me and stick with me, I show you exactly how it is going to happen and it is nothing like cannibalism. But they refused. They refused to trust Him, to believe that He was telling them the truth. They couldn’t believe that with God all things are possible. They lacked faith. And so they left.




Quote:
Quote:
Christ did not say, This represents my body. He said, this IS my body.


No, as I pointed out before, he most certainly didn't say a piece of bread was his body.


He sure did. He held up a piece of bread and said, “This is my body” And before He did that He told His followers He was going to give them His Body to eat and in fact He told them they had to eat His flesh in order to live. Which is exactly why they were shocked and horrified! No one would be shocked and horrified if someone were speaking metaphorically that they were to eat them up or drink them in. We would hear that as poetic and figurative language. But that’s not what the crowd heard. Because they knew Jesus wasn’t speaking metaphorically. They had heard him correctly. He was using graphic language and they knew they had heard Him correctly. Which is why they said, This is a hard saying. Who can accept it? They were hoping to give Jesus an opportunity to explain Himself. And Jesus simply repeated it again this time with even greater emphasis on the literalness. Then Jesus turned to His Disciples and said, “Do you too take offense at this? Do you too wish to go?” And then we are told many left Him that day. No one would leave Him if He had been speaking figuratively. That simply makes absolutely NO sense. To read it any other way simply fails to accept the basic meaning of the text.



Quote:
Thus the Catholic church has been shown to teach false doctrine, and not just any false doctrine, but one of the central and defining doctrines of the Catholic church. QED


The Catholic position is the one that makes the most sense. It is also what the first Christians believed and what the early Church fathers all wrote about. The teaching of the Real Presence is what Christ’s Church taught from the beginning. It wasn’t until those who broke off from Christ’s Church started reducing Christ’s words to being merely symbolic. But to do so renders the Scriptures meaningless. We also see in Scripture a little later on when Paul warns the Christians that those who do not discern the body of Christ in the Eucharist profane the body of Christ and render judgment upon themselves. He was telling us we must discern the body of Christ before we partake. That wouldn’t make sense for him to say if we are talking about receiving mere bread and wine and speaking of the Holy Eucharist in symbolic terms. Please think about it. And then add to that how Jesus compared Himself to the sacrificial lamb. A spotless lamb only could be offered for sacrifice and when the high priest gave the lamb to God, he would then consume part of it. Jesus is the spotless lamb. He is the ultimate sacrifice that has done away with the need for any other sacrifices. He is a once and for all perpetual offering to the Father, which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. And we are expected to consume Him as fulfillment of the Law. Gaaaaah . . . how do people not see the parallelism? How do they miss all the awesomeness? Instead we have churches today who pass out cookies and grape juice reducing the incredible sacrificial offering to symbolize some breaking bread together like one would at a potluck or BBQ. They miss it! They miss the greatest gift our Lord gives to us – Himself in the Holy Eucharist.



Quote:
I'm talking about the fact that liberal Jesuits know no boundaries that can't be crossed.


You once again speak about that which you do not understand. There are good Jesuits and not so good Jesuits. Jesuits tend to be more about social justice. In that sense, they may be more likely to apologize for past sins committed in the Church – which is a good thing. But like I said, they can’t apologize for official Church teachings – there is nothing to apologize for.


Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, we got that. Again, it wouldn't surprise me to see Francis apologize ex cathedra.


Your comment simply demonstrates you do not understand Church teaching. I am not trying to be rude here, but a good reference book is actually, Catholicism for dummies to help clear up some of your misconceptions.


Quote:
Quote:
Christ did not come to fulfill the Mosaic Law. Christ came to fulfill the moral law. We no longer must abide by Mosaic Law.


A distinction with no effective difference.



A massive difference! Mosaic Law gave us things like don’t eat shell fish, and women should be sent out of their communities for the days they are menstruating, and a brother must marry his brother’s widow, etc.

We are no longer bound by Mosaic Law.

Quote:
Christ says, "love your enemies as yourself". This is right from the Mosaic law.


Sure. Because it is the Moral Law. Man has always been bound by the Moral Law.

Quote:
Lewis was basically an atheist. He looked at Christianity as belief in fairy tales. It's ironic and surprising because Chesterton had such a huge influence over Lewis' conversion, but not quite enough to convert Lewis to Catholicism. Why?


Well, I have my theory. How many people would not even bother to pick up C.S.Lewis book if they thought he was Catholic? My guess, given anti-Catholic sentiment, is a lot. C.S. Lewis has written some amazing stuff bringing lots of people closer to God and deepening their Christian faith. As Jesus said, He who is not against us, is with us. And who knows where Lewis ended up in his later years or on his death bed. I could easily have seen him acknowledging the Catholic faith as the one true faith before he died. It happens.


Here is a biographer explaining why Lewis did not publicly declare his Catholicism. Looks like just like today many were very anti-Catholic in Lewis’ time and maybe we never do quite realize the pressure and effect perpetuated anti-Catholic propaganda can have . . .


Lewis was born in Belfast and knew his prejudices sat deep.

For example, Joseph Pearce, in his book, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003) stated:

In summary, Lewis's religious upbringing seems to have been characterized by an inherited anti-Catholicism, whether implicit or explicit, . . . (p. 5)



. . we must take him at his word in Mere Christianity when he says that the reason why he does not address the issues between the churches are these: first, he is not a professional theologian but an amateur whose “expertise” is in the “basics.” Second, that he thought God wanted him to address the “basics” because most Christian writers were not doing so; they were fighting on the flanks while the center was going undefended. . . .

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/why-c.s.-lewis-never-became-a-catholic

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:25 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
[Replying to post 8 by RightReason]



Quote:
Quote:
Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in it. He told them His body is real food and blood is real drink.

Sounds like cannibalism.

Because you want it to.[/quote]

No, because you say this:

Quote:
He was going to give them His Body to eat and in fact He told them they had to eat His flesh in order to live. Which is exactly why they were shocked and horrified! No one would be shocked and horrified if someone were speaking metaphorically that they were to eat them up or drink them in. We would hear that as poetic and figurative language. But that’s not what the crowd heard. Because they knew Jesus wasn’t speaking metaphorically. They had heard him correctly. He was using graphic language and they knew they had heard Him correctly. Which is why they said, This is a hard saying. Who can accept it? They were hoping to give Jesus an opportunity to explain Himself. And Jesus simply repeated it again this time with even greater emphasis on the literalness.



Quote:
Why don’t you ask yourself what cannibalism is? Cannibalism is the killing of one’s enemy and then eating his dead human body.


Not necessarily. One doesn't have to kill someone to eat their body. They can simply eat someone who has just died on their own. They don't necessarily have to be an enemy either. Coincidently, Catholic doctrine expressly allows for this with the abrogation of the dietary laws. The dietary laws are the only thing standing in the way of engaging in cannibalism as they prohibit the eating of any flesh that has died on its own.

Quote:
Jesus is true God and true man. He isn’t simply a human being, is He?


Doesn't matter. You're the one who is pointing out that he's literally informing them to eat his body.

Quote:
He’s divine. He also isn’t dead, is He? I don’t know about you, but I believe Jesus is very much well and alive. And finally, He isn’t our enemy. He has given Himself for us.


Anyone and everyone who has a carnal mind and sins is God's enemy until they are reconciled by Christ. As Paul puts it, while we were yet sinners, Christ died...

Quote:
your accusation that receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is cannibalism?


Strawman argument. I'm not suggesting that what he said was cannabalism or that he was referring to the holy eucharist. I'm referring to your claim that Jesus is spseaking about literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Here it is again:

Quote:
That is exactly what they thought when they heard His words. That’s why they were so offended. They were outraged. This guy is asking us to eat Him? And yet, Jesus didn’t say no, no you got it all wrong – that’s not what I’m saying. No. He said, yes that is what I’m saying and if you trust me and stick with me, I show you exactly how it is going to happen and it is nothing like cannibalism.


You're contradicting yourself again. You say he's speaking literally, then you claim it isn't literal. Which is it? And if Jesus is speaking figuratively with regards to cannibalism, then what figure is he using?

Quote:
No one would leave Him if He had been speaking figuratively.


Sure they would. He's just told them that he must suffer and be crucified. He's figuratively showing that they too will have to digest the full meaning of his sacrifice themselves in their own lives. He's repeatedly pointed out that his followers would have to follow him all the way unconditionally. The baptism he would have was into death. He points that out, and Paul does as well.


Quote:
"This is my body" (touto esti to soma mou). This is no more literal than to say "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." or The field is the world". He is speaking figuratively.

He is using the figure Metaphor; or Representation. Which is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation. From the Greek-metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From (meta), beyond or over, and (Pherein), to carry. The Metaphor declares that one thing IS the other.

The Metaphor is not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, and not in either of the two nouns: and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.

In our example, the pronoun, "this" (touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with "body" (swma), which is neuter, and not with bread (aptos, artos), which is masculine. This is always the case in Metaphors. Here are a few other examples to illustrate.
In Zech. 5:8, "This is wickedness." Here, "this" (fem.) does not agree with "ephah" (to which it refers), which is neuter, but with "wickedness, " which is feminine.
In Zech. 5:3, "This is the curse." "This" (fem.) agrees with "curse", which is feminine, and not with "flying roll", which is neuter, (to which it refers).
In Matt.13:38, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." Here, "these" (masc.) agrees with "children of the kingdom" (masc.), and not with seed, which is neuter.
What this is showing is that in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the figure lies only in the verb.

"This is (i.e., represents) my body," is an undoubted Metaphor. "He took the cup...saying...this is my blood." Here we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, "this" refers to "bread", and it is claimed that "is" means changed into the "body" of Christ. In the latter, "this" refers to "the cup", but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into "blood". The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is proof that the former is wrong.
In 1Cor. 11:25 we read "this cup is the new covenant." How does this "cup" become transubstantiated into a "covenant"?

Additionally, the verb, (eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of signifying, amounting to. e.g. Mt.9:13, 'But go ye and learn what that means"
Mt.12:7, "But if ye had known what this means".
Acts. 10:7, "Now, while Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean"
On the other hand, if an actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which plainly and actually says so; for the verb "to be" never has or conveys any idea of such a change.

The usual verb to express such a change is (ginomai), which means to be or become. Mk.9:39, 'There was(i.e. became) a great calm,"
Lk.4:3, "Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread."
John 16:20, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." This was a real transubstantiation.
If Jesus had meant that the bread had become His body, that is the verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but instead used the simple verb (eimi), i.e., "is" proves conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was intended.
From all this it is clear that the words, "This is my body" means "This (bread) represents my body."



Thus AGAIN the Catholic church has been shown to teach false doctrine, and not just any false doctrine, but one of the central and defining doctrines of the Catholic church. QED


Quote:
The Catholic position is the one that makes the most sense.


Address the argument. We're not intrested in more tautologies or fallacies of Appeals to Authority. Address the argument presented. If you want to focus on one argument, focus on that one.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:26 pm
Reply
Re: Protesting what?

Like this post
[Replying to post 8 by RightReason]


Quote:
Quote:
Do you have photographs of your loved ones?

I don't decorate them, or parade around my home with them on an annual basis.


Quote:
There is nothing inherently wrong about keeping memories of our loved ones. Unless of course one needs to feel better about their own faith by suggesting someone else’s is inferior.


Perhaps, but then so what? There is no effective difference when it comes to complete strangers which is what we're dealing with when we look at images/statuary of a mother with child that is placed in a prominent position within a pagan temple, cathedral, etc. I'm not suggesting this is superior or inferior. I'm simply pointing out what they're doing. I fail to see why you're getting so defensive about this when I'm not even putting it down in the first place.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you worship those photographs? Do you attribute power to the photographs?

Nope, but Catholics do with their relics as well as their statues.


Quote:
More talk about something you seem to know little about.


Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Actually it's my own first hand experience.

Quote:
one of the biggest problems for non-Catholics are the relics of saints—the bones, ashes, clothing, or personal possessions of the apostles and other holy people that are held in reverence by the Church and sometimes associated with miraculous healings and other acts of God. The Church does not claim that relics have “magical powers.”


It's a problem for practicing Catholics as well. I have watched with my own eyes as a traveling deacon on a mission informed an entire church that the piece of wood he had in his hand was from the cross Christ was crucified on. He then proceeded to take this relic in his hand and bless anyone who came to the alter. I even remember his name. It was Zimmerman, and all the kids in school referred to him as "the Zimmer Zapper" because he informed everyone that "the power of the cross of Christ" could overwhelm and incapacitate those who came for a blessing. Many people were left lying on their backs around the alter. Numerous students from the local elementary school admitted that the deacon pushed them over.

Quote:
When Jesus healed the blind man in John 9:1-7, did the Lord use magic mud and spittle? Was it actually a magic potion he mixed in the clay,


By most accounts, John's gospel depicts Christ as God incarnate in the world. This account simply echoes the creation stories in Genesis.

Quote:
In the fourth century the great biblical scholar, Jerome, declared, “We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are” (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907).


Sounds good. Ask a thousand Catholics if they've ever even heard that, and the vast majority haven't, and don't view relics as Jerome did. `

Quote:
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: “So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet” (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!


A great example, and yet in this example there is no one explaining to the man who fell into the grave who's bones are in there, or the possibility that he may be revived by contact with them. In Catholic churches around the world, there is an induction which is no different than those used by hypnotists. This isn't the exclusive domain of Catholicism either. Plenty of Pentacostals engage in this nonsense as well.

Quote:
If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.


Non Sequitur. A fraud doesn't prove the genuine article is a fraud as well.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version