metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Obviously, you never read it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ask a Catholic
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
But Torah-Prophets doesn't defend the Judaism people.
Regards
Yechezkel - Ezekiel - Chapter 22:18-22
18"Son of man! The house of Israel has become dross to Me; all of them are copper and tin and iron and lead in the midst of a furnace; dross of silver have they become.
19Therefore, so said the Lord God: Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I gather you together into the midst of Jerusalem.
20As they gather silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace to blow fire upon it, to melt it, so shall I gather with My wrath and with My fury, and I shall cast you in and melt you.
21And I shall gather you, and I shall blow upon you with the fire of My anger, and you will be melted in its midst.
22As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so will you be melted in its midst, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have poured out My fury upon you."
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16120
Regards
But Torah-Prophets doesn't defend the Judaism people.
Regards
It is the Judaism people who should read the following:
Yechezkel - Ezekiel - Chapter 22:18-22
18"Son of man! The house of Israel has become dross to Me; all of them are copper and tin and iron and lead in the midst of a furnace; dross of silver have they become.
19Therefore, so said the Lord God: Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I gather you together into the midst of Jerusalem.
20As they gather silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace to blow fire upon it, to melt it, so shall I gather with My wrath and with My fury, and I shall cast you in and melt you.
21And I shall gather you, and I shall blow upon you with the fire of My anger, and you will be melted in its midst.
22As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so will you be melted in its midst, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have poured out My fury upon you."
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16120
Regards
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The only thing the above proves is that you are willingly using "cherry-picking" tactics to try and make a point, thus ignoring what the rest of the text states.
Scott C.
Just one guy
Fascinating. I thought only we Mormons believe the gospel is preached to the dead.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I dont know if you answered this in some of the other posts who asked this fully, but Im curious about how you believe it and Do you believe it because it is fact or what you are supposed to believe.
Do you actually believe (no pun) that a 2,000 year old god literally becomes bread and wine and you eat him in communion?
I used to be Catholic, and I understood finally what they meant by this (from my interpretation). However, I notice every Catholic (excluding priests) avoid this question by saying: its a mystery, ask the priest, or thats what the church teaches (case closed).
Yet, when you use "literal" and "actual", you are not saying like Mana, that god knew he sent the "actual bread" for the Isrealities for food, and it became the "symbol" of life. In the OT Knew what they sacrificed was a Lamb (actual lamb) And they knew it was a symbol (for lack of words) for their sins.
Jesus Knew that he held actual wine and bread (as thats how they commune, through food an actual meal). He knew the importance of this Last Meal would be the only meal (actual food) people would remember him by: this is my body; this is my blood.
You see evidence of this as Christians of All denominations consume actual bread and drink actual wine and...
That is the central message of communion, the meal christ gave which through actual food (as mana), they are in communion with believers as well as him.
The meal was the glue that holds believers together with christ.
Since he isnt here in the flesh, he is IN the not The meal served In his name (my flesh; my blood)
So I ask....
Do you actually believe you are literally consuming a 2,000 year old god?
And
Does that god not exist in his meal until the priest concecrates it?
--
Jesus concecrated the meal for communion With Himself not concecrated the meal As himself.
How does the church explain this without saying its a mystery (as I have asked the priest), so cant say that?
Asking a Catholic: What say you?
I am well versed in Catholic Apologetics for I spent a year in a monastery studying it all.
I put this in the debate section that you may challenge and fire your arrows at the Pope!
Do you actually believe (no pun) that a 2,000 year old god literally becomes bread and wine and you eat him in communion?
I used to be Catholic, and I understood finally what they meant by this (from my interpretation). However, I notice every Catholic (excluding priests) avoid this question by saying: its a mystery, ask the priest, or thats what the church teaches (case closed).
Yet, when you use "literal" and "actual", you are not saying like Mana, that god knew he sent the "actual bread" for the Isrealities for food, and it became the "symbol" of life. In the OT Knew what they sacrificed was a Lamb (actual lamb) And they knew it was a symbol (for lack of words) for their sins.
Jesus Knew that he held actual wine and bread (as thats how they commune, through food an actual meal). He knew the importance of this Last Meal would be the only meal (actual food) people would remember him by: this is my body; this is my blood.
You see evidence of this as Christians of All denominations consume actual bread and drink actual wine and...
That is the central message of communion, the meal christ gave which through actual food (as mana), they are in communion with believers as well as him.
The meal was the glue that holds believers together with christ.
Since he isnt here in the flesh, he is IN the not The meal served In his name (my flesh; my blood)
So I ask....
Do you actually believe you are literally consuming a 2,000 year old god?
And
Does that god not exist in his meal until the priest concecrates it?
--
Jesus concecrated the meal for communion With Himself not concecrated the meal As himself.
How does the church explain this without saying its a mystery (as I have asked the priest), so cant say that?
Asking a Catholic: What say you?
Last edited:
I also do not believe there are humans with parents that don't have souls, but I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
Well, if the first living beings had no soul and humans do have a soul, then it follows that there must be on organism in between with no soul but with offsprings with a soul.
Unless you subscribe to one of the two premises:
1) souls evolve gradually like the phenotypes that contain them
2) evolution is false
And no. Accepting evolution without accepting what it entails (e.g. a fish in the family album) equals to not accepting it.
Ciao
- viole
Spiderman
Veteran Member
your post is very thoughtful , but I did answer the question. Scripture repeatedly speaks of Holy Communion as the flesh and blood of Christ. All of the Church fathers and Mothers, and the early Christians for roughly fifteen hundred years ,believed Holy Communion was God making himself present in the form of bread and wine , becoming one flesh with us in that manner.
I said it was what I firmly believed and what all Catholics are supposed to believe, but I'm having difficulty lately.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Its a difficult teaching to understand since the bible has a different spin than how the Church interprets it. Thats the Roman part. I side more with Othorodox, if Im getting my Eucharistic translations correct.
It doesnt make sense that bread and wine is the actual body and blood of christ.
Every meal in the bible had a specific meaning to which the meal was for. The food for example during the time they put blood on the door meant something. The mana Isrealites recieved, they got because they starved physically (desert) and spiritually (abent of gods presence).
Since it was god and not joe smoe that sent down mana, that symbol (strong word) of life was the life given by god and the nourishment they recieved for their physical and spiritual health.
The bread was real bread. It wasnt god. Bread means life.
Likewise, when the community of believers sat and broke real bread around the table hearing the cries of parents as their new birn sons murdered, this meal was not just any meal.
If I remember. It symbolized (strong word) being obedient to god.
Think of all the meals in the Bible.
In the NT, cant remember where, but Jesus broke one bread to a thousand loaves.
This was real bread. From him, it meant (strong word) life. Coming from him is different than coming from joe smoe.
In all ocasions in scripture, bread and wine meant life.
The Last Meal was called the Last Meal on purpose. It was the Last sacrificial meal. Himself. Not bread. Not wine. The food didnt die on the cross. Christ did.
When Jesus rose the bread and said this js my body it was the same as god giving the Isrealities mana and saying this is life.
Yet, the bread was still literally bread.
They didnt consume Jesus. They communed with him.
Communion means to communion with the Body of Christ. When the Body communions, christ is present. When the Eucharist is consumed, that Last Meal binds all believers IN Christ.
That literal meal isnt like going to McDonalds. I dont understand how bread and wine needs to become Christ in order to commune with him by the food he gave around to his disciples.
--
Once you make the Eucharist a mystery, to me, it takes out the importance of it. When you see the actual bread and wine as food the disciples were given by christ and you see it as a bond to the Church and Christ,
Food takes on a different meaning.
Its no longer just bread and wine as you get at a store. It is life.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
<~~Sometimes she wishes she was still Catholic.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One is not restricted in not mentioning Torah quotes that support one's point of view. Is one?
Torah-Prophets doesn't support one's view point.
Any other Judaism people (or others) could help one, I don't mind. Welcome to support.
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
There are many clues in the events mentioned in NT, that prove the Paul could not doctor well the anonymous gospels name Matthew, Marks, John etc, just for credence:
- There are clues in the events mentioned in NT that happened before Jesus was put on the Cross.
- There are clues in the events mentioned in NT that happened while Jesus was on the Cross.
- There are clues in the events mentioned in NT that happened when Jesus was put for treatment in the tomb of Joseph Armethia
.
- There are clues in the events mentioned in NT that happened when Jesus was healed after treatment in the tomb of Joseph Armethia.
- There are clues in the events mentioned in NT that happened when Jesus healed after treatment in the tomb of Joseph Armethia and Jesus met his friends.
- There are clues in the events mentioned in NT that happened when Jesus came out from the tomb before he went to Galilee.
Regards
I never understood, even in my Christian years, why the disciples were so skeptical, initially, about the first reports of Jesus resurrection.
Ciao
- viole
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Jesus never told the disciples that he was going to raise from the clinically-dead/physically-dead/literally-dead/materially-dead, hence they knew Jesus will only revive from the near-dead. And this happens many a times in real life with so many people.
Regards
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
roger1440
I do stuff
The Church is built on how the revelation was revealed to Peter. That is the foundation of the church or rock. The revelation was revealed to Peter by God not by “flesh and blood”. “Flesh and blood” means it was not revealed by a person. The written word or Gospels would be included with “flesh and blood” because they are written by man. They are “flesh and blood” by proxy. The verse is a paradox.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Now Im interested by Catholics is my 108 post wrong? Or a different way of interpreting the Eucharistic mystery?
How far does the church go on this issue? Where do they draw the line? What "evidence" for evolution do they accept?
Do you know what the Hebrew word for "soul" means? "Neʹphesh" is always used to describe a living, breathing creature....it is not used to describe something inside a person, but is used to describe the whole person. Animals are also described as "souls" who breathe the same air, and die the same death as we do.
Eccl 3:19, 20:
"for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust."
This is what God told Adam....that he would return to the dust.
roger1440
I do stuff
Explain the Immaculate Conception to me. The Virgin Mary was not stained with original sin because her mother Anne was not stained by original sin. Ok, I understand that. But wouldn’t Anne’s mother be required not to be stained with original sin too? And her mother and her mother’s mother all the way down the line to Eve?