A discussion called "IS the 'Church' the same as the 'Roman Catholic Church'?" was quite abruptly terminated which I feel is unfair and the discussion remains incomplete. So does the 'Church' mentioned in the Bible refer to the RCC.

Yes, the word 'Church' mentioned in the Bible refers to what is called the 'Catholic' today. The word Church means a single building, the body of faithful, as well as a universal 'Church'. All these meanings are clearly implied in Scripture. The universal Church referred to in Scripture is the infant pilgrim Roman Catholic Church.

I'll go a step further; those same Holy Scriptures referenced are a special case of Holy Tradition (the word of mouth teachings of the Apostles – fulfilling Christ's commission to baptize and teach God's Kingdom (Cf. Matt 28:17 sqq .) which is the Roman Catholic Church. Had she not been faithful to Christ's commission to teach, you wouldn't have a bible today.

Many don't like it, but it's that simple.

JoeT

A discussion called "IS the 'Church' the same as the 'Roman Catholic Church'?" was quite abruptly terminated which I feel is unfair and the discussion remains incomplete. So does the 'Church' mentioned in the Bible refer to the RCC.

The Church started in the Bible is not the same as the RCC today. The RCC has absorbed a lot from the cultures it has come into contact with. It's structure is a reflection of the Roman state of the fourth century, not the culture of first century Judea or Antioch. Jesus Christ obviously didn't intend there should be a hierarchical structure that is why he had 12 apostles and he rebuked the apostles when he was asked who was the greatest or leader. Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church, the head of every man.

Just saying it doesn't make it so but the RCC would have us believe it is the premier expression of Christian thought, infalliable in its view. If you want to study this subject read the book Pagan Christianity

Joe you know very well a Biblical Church is not a building but a group of people so stop with the false teaching. I have never heard of the infant pilgrim roman catholic church and it certainly isn't mentioned in Scripture so it must be a figment of your imagination.

As to tradition remember Jesus said it is by your traditions you nullify the word of God and that wasn't an instruction as to how to do so. This thread is obviously as screwed up as the last one

The church mentioned in the bible has to do with people who are true worshipers of the Lord. People who worship in Spirit and in Truth. The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is very helpful in my opinion. So to me it is not about the RCC or any other denomination. It is about true worshipers, it is about people, it is about living stones. Remember hoe Solomon's Temple was built. It was not built in one place.Parts of the Temple were made in different places by different people and when time came, those parts were brought to Jerusalem and the pieces were joined together without a hammers sound being heard, and the Temple of the Lord was ready!
Today the parts of the Living Temple of God are being prepared in many different places/denominations... We the living stones will be called to present ourselves so that the Living Temple of the Lord, the Church, the ekklesia, shall be completed and the glory of the Lord shall dwell inside us!

The Church started in the Bible is not the same as the RCC today.

Then what does it refer to? How did your Church come to be from 2,000 years ago?


the RCC has absorbed a lot from the cultures it has come into contact with. It's structure is a reflection of the Roman state of the fourth century, not the culture of first century Judea or Antioch.

How does the custom or culture of ‘Church’ affect the Truth a Church holds? Just so you don’t get confused, I make a distinction between Apostolic Tradition and customs/culture.



Jesus Christ obviously didn't intend there should be a hierarchical structure that is why he had 12 apostles and he rebuked the apostles when he was asked who was the greatest or leader. Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church, the head of every man.

So he rebuked the Apostles? What distinction does this make? Teachers ‘rebuke’ their students all the time, how else do they lean?


Just saying it doesn't make it so but the RCC would have us believe it is the premier expression of Christian thought, infallible in its view.

In matters of faith and morals, yes I would have you believe that it is ‘the premier expression’ of Christian Truth and infallible in its teachings.


JoeT

Joe you know very well a Biblical Church is not a building but a group of people so stop with the false teaching. I have never heard of the infant pilgrim roman catholic church and it certainly isn't mentioned in Scripture so it must be a figment of your imagination.

Is it a figment of my imagination? Why is it still here after 2,000 years?



As to tradition remember Jesus said it is by your traditions you nullify the word of God and that wasn't an instruction as to how to do so. This thread is obviously as screwed up as the last one

How then do we read scripture that says that we are to keep the traditions of the Apostles? “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. “(2 Thes 2:15)

Yes, by all means, keep the word of God, every letter of it. Hold fast the ‘traditions’ you have learned from the Apostles, which is what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does.


JoeT

The church mentioned in the bible has to do with people who are true worshipers of the Lord. People who worship in Spirit and in Truth.

In your estimation, does the Catholic Church fit your definition, why or why not?



The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is very helpful in my opinion. So to me it is not about the RCC or any other denomination. It is about true worshipers, it is about people, it is about living stones.

How many 'true' Churches are there? How do you know which is 'true' and which isn't? Or is all truth relative. That is to say, is your truth is as good as another truth? But, God's truth is absolute, it is the Will of God, so how do you support your answer and yet still see God's truth?



Remember hoe Solomon's Temple was built. It was not built in one place. Parts of the Temple were made in different places by different people and when time came, those parts were brought to Jerusalem and the pieces were joined together without a hammers sound being heard, and the Temple of the Lord was ready!

Am I to understand that you think 'Church' is a quiet place?


Today the parts of the Living Temple of God are being prepared in many different places/denominations... We the living stones will be called to present ourselves so that the Living Temple of the Lord, the Church, the ekklesia, shall be completed and the glory of the Lord shall dwell inside us!


I don't understand how does this fit with the OP.


JoeT

I don’t understand how does this fit with the OP.


JoeT

I think that is the point Joe you don't understand that what is important is our relationship with Jesus, not which door we walk in. People who have to reassure others they are in the true church have missed the point. There is no perfect church

I think that is the point Joe you don't understand that what is important is our relationship with Jesus, not which door we walk in.

It doesn't matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, 'equal' to your Church?

It doesn't matter which Church we walk into. Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, 'equal' to your Church?
No one except you and Fred have even made that sort of outlandish claims. So what is your point?
As long as a church teaches the complete word of God as found in the Bible then YES they are as good as your beloved RCC.

That is the whole point. The RCC was NOT nor has it EVER been the one and only church. You cannot prove that the RCC was started any earlier than what 3-400 AD? That is more than 300 years after Christs crucifixion and long after Peter and the rest of the disciples deaths at the hands of who? THE ROMAN'S! Is that not the first case of how your religious originators treated people who did not follow their beliefs? Let's face the facts and move on. YOU HAVE NO PROOF that the RCC is the first or only true religion. I will admit that it is likely one of the oldest established religion on earth today following Christs teachings. However you are attempting to skew it into the realm of cult status with your outlandish claims. I for one am really sick and tired of your lies and half truth's and getting away with it. It is apparent to everyone that you and Fred are protected by the moderators. That is one of the reasons that there are not many true Christians left on the board. The moderators have banned many and others like me have simply given up and quit. No matter how much we complain about the insults you have hurled at us recently nothing happens. Wonder why?
I really doubt that this post will stay up for long as the truth hurts some people too much but since this is probably my last comments****

There was only one and only one Church prefigured in prophecy. If one was needing 'proof,' this alone should be convincing. We don't just have the empty air of words, we have a prophecy realized in Christ. Constituted by Christ, organized by the Apostles as a Divine and perfect society, one which is necessary as a means of salvation, a church that is visible to the world with both jurisdiction and principle authority, a Church with a universal Magisterium, and one commissioned by Christ is the One True Church of the Messiah.

This is why we say; "Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”. (Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, William Cardinal Levada, July 2007.)

In the Old Testament prophecy there is a conjoined and parallel prophecy of the Messiah and Christ's Kingdom, the Kingdom of God; the Catholic Church. This prophecy cannot be separated from Christ. To do so denies His prophetic Messianic mission. Divine Prophecy foreshadows Christ establishment of a Kingdom which will reign over the world regenerating Israel. This prophecy requires Christ's personal presence bestowing a the keys to new Church with a specific sacrificial system in his role as Messiah (Psalm 109:4). Its tenets will be based on Divine revelation as her high priest (Isaiah 66:18; Jeremiah 33:20). And her government will originate from the Messiah as its prophet (Malachi 1:11). According to prophecy the new Church will be supernaturally revealed by Christ.

The prophetic image in the Old Testament is that the Messianic Kingdom will be universal; not only for the twelve Hebrew Tribes but also for the Gentiles. Allegiance will be given to the Son of David. (Cf. Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10) "It shall come to pass in the last days (i.e. in the Messianic Era) . . . that many nations shall say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem" (Micah 4:1-2; cf. Isaiah 2:2; Zechariah 8:3). In addition the prophecies for the new Church include a unity of worship, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters [the Gospels] shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them to the east sea, and half of them to the last sea: they shall be in summer and in winter. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one.” (Zechariah 14:8) And I've presented her the very same Scripture that Paul, no doubt, read throughout the Mediterranean to doubting Jewish communities; it contains the same certitude as the prophecy of the Messiah. Do we ignore it for our own subjective 'Church'?

If I can show from Old Testament Scriptures how the One and only One True Church is foretold as being the established here on earth, then how does the claim that a plethora of Churches constitute ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH, ONE SPIRIT IN CHRIST? Or how does the claim of One Man equals One Church find any validity?

The prophets of the Old Testament were told of a New Kingdom, a New Covent, to be consecrated by Christ for the salvation of the faithful with a particular sacrificial system having an authority emanating from the Messiah. Failing this understanding fails to see Christ's prophetic role as the Messiah therein denying God's revelation. The point is that it is this Church that was consecrated by the Divine to be Holy.

There is but One True Church of Jesus Christ.

JoeT

It doesn’t matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, ‘equal’ to your Church?

Joe you didn't listen to what I said so I'll say it again in a different way. It doesn't matter which door you walk into, what matters is whether you know the owner of the house. It isn't a question of churches being equal, it is a question of personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If you don't have that, no amount of being in a church will do anything for you, irrespective of which church it is. We are not saved by our church affiliation but by our acknowledgement of Jesus Christ. So for me I am not concerned about whether the church I attend is the "true" church since all churches are of the view they are the true church or at least part of it. What I must be concerned about is I am faithfull to the teachings of Jesus Christ and that is concerned with how I relate to God and treat others

Joe you didn't listen to what I said so I'll say it again in a different way. It doesn't matter which door you walk into, what matters is whether you know the owner of the house. It isn't a question of churches being equal; it is a question of personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

You’re absolutely right; before you enter a house you should know the owner is Christ. That’s why I’m Catholic. All other houses are under different management.

JoeT

You’re absolutely right; before you enter a house you should know the owner is Christ. That’s why I’m Catholic. All other houses are under different management.

JoeT

Various events over the years might lead me to suggest your claim is invalid and, in fact, the RCC is under different management, and your suggestion that other Christian churches are not under the management of Christ is offensive and certainly incorrect. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Joe, unless it is at pedophile priests and clergy

Various events over the years might lead me to suggest your claim is invalid and, in fact, the RCC is under different management, and your suggestion that other Christian churches are not under the management of Christ is offensive and certainly incorrect. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Joe, unless it is at pedophile priests and clergy

I wouldn't suggest throwing stones, paraclete. Unless it is at a pedophile Evangelist minister, 'otherbrand' ministers, preachers, etc. - better judgment prevents me from posting a few links - but maybe you would be wise to look around a bit to see just how transparent and brittle the glass is in your house. You might surprise yourself.

JoeT

The True Church is the one in the hearts of believers. Only God knows exactly who those believers are. Their identity is going to surprise us. Membership in a particular church or no membership in a church has nothing to do with membership in the True Church.

adam7gur

Good point man. Keep it up. God Bless you.

I wouldn't suggest throwing stones, paraclete. Unless it is at a pedophile Evangelist minister, 'otherbrand' ministers, preachers, etc. - better judgment prevents me from posting a few links - but maybe you would be wise to look around a bit to see just how transparent and brittle the glass is in your house. You might surprise yourself.

JoeT

Unless your "Church" would immediately remove a senior pastor from office and cancel their credentials at the accusation of improprietary you have no case to put here. That is the standard used in the Church I attend. I don't suggest that it is not possible for anyone to fall, but should they do so, not protected but out on their ear. So much for those who bring the Church into disrepute. That was a foul ball, next ball, shall we do the Crusades or the Inquisition or perhaps a jewish pogrom or two?

JoeT777


There was only one and only one Church prefigured in prophecy. If one was needing ‘proof,’ this alone should be convincing.

You are still just repeating what you have said. How do you know that the "one and only true Church prophesied" is the RCC? You are evading this question from the beginning.


We don’t just have the empty air of words, we have a prophecy realized in Christ. Constituted by Christ, organized by the Apostles as a Divine and perfect society, one which is necessary as a means of salvation, a church that is visible to the world with both jurisdiction and principle authority, a Church with a universal Magisterium, and one commissioned by Christ is the One True Church of the Messiah.

There is no prophesy claiming the true Church to be the RC. That is lie number one. The Apostles did not establish the RC and that is lie number two. If you don't want your claims to be called a lie then back it up with evidence from scripture.


This is why we say; "Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

Quote the Bible friend. Let's have some quotes from the word of God.


In the Old Testament prophecy there is a conjoined and parallel prophecy of the Messiah and Christ's Kingdom, the Kingdom of God; the Catholic Church.

There is that empty claim again.


This prophecy cannot be separated from Christ. To do so denies His prophetic Messianic mission. Divine Prophecy foreshadows Christ establishment of a Kingdom which will reign over the world regenerating Israel. This prophecy requires Christ’s personal presence bestowing a the keys to new Church with a specific sacrificial system in his role as Messiah (Psalm 109:4). Its tenets will be based on Divine revelation as her high priest (Isaiah 66:18; Jeremiah 33:20). And her government will originate from the Messiah as its prophet (Malachi 1:11). According to prophecy the new Church will be supernaturally revealed by Christ.

This is everything about the new Church. Nothing in here to support that the "new Church" is the RC.


"The prophetic image in the Old Testament is that....Do we ignore it for our own subjective ‘Church’? "

In this paragraph too as the previous one no support.


If I can show from Old Testament Scriptures how the One and only One True Church is foretold as being the established here on earth, then how does the claim that a plethora of Churches constitute ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH, ONE SPIRIT IN CHRIST? Or how does the claim of One Man equals One Church find any validity?


You just do not understand that a Church does not refer to a denomination but a group of believers. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "Church".


The prophets of the Old Testament were told of a New Kingdom, a New Covent, to be consecrated by Christ for the salvation of the faithful with a particular sacrificial system having an authority emanating from the Messiah. Failing this understanding fails to see Christ’s prophetic role as the Messiah therein denying God’s revelation. The point is that it is this Church that was consecrated by the Divine to be Holy.

There is but One True Church of Jesus Christ.

True but is that one true Church of Jesus Christ the RC? That is what you have failed to answer.


You’re absolutely right; before you enter a house you should know the owner is Christ. That’s why I’m Catholic. All other houses are under different management.

I could say that the RC is the one that has a different management. You are the one who is making this kind of insulting statements and not any of us. If you don't stop such kind of talk then the moderators will terminate this post also.

Some of the difficulty lies with the RCC belief that Jesus made Peter the first pope... "and upon this rock...," when, in fact, Jesus was referring to HIMSELF, not Peter, as the rock upon which the Church would be built.

Another difficulty is with the word "catholic" which means universal and does NOT refer specifically to the Roman CATHOLIC Church when it is used in the creeds.

Still another difficulty is that the only known Christian church, the early church spoken of in The Acts, developed into the RCC which claims to have preserved the catholic ("universal") tradition as handed down through the Early Church Fathers. (The word "Roman" in the title is there because of the central position attributed to the See of Rome ruling over the entire church body.)

Joe is obviously brainwashed I was brought up to believe all this true church rubbish too but I learned something different about Christ. What Joe doesn't know is that God speaks to Christians outside the RCC, why would he do that if the RCC were the only true church? Joe needs to realise that the RCC diverted from the path a long time ago, around about the time it became the Roman state religion, and needs to be restored. Luther began the task a thousand years later, but they chucked him out, others have tried but are yet to succeed.

The RCC has tried to make the Church some sort of exclusive club but the Holy Spirit won't be put in a box, he keeps breaking out, and that happens outside the RCC as well.

Joe is obviously brainwashed I was brought up to believe all this true church rubbish too but I learned something different about Christ. What Joe doesn't know is that God speaks to Christians outside the RCC, why would he do that if the RCC were the only true church? Joe needs to realise that the RCC diverted from the path a long time ago, around about the time it became the Roman state religion, and needs to be restored. Luther began the task a thousand years later, but they chucked him out, others have tried but are yet to succeed.

the RCC has tried to make the Church some sort of exclusive club but the Holy Spirit won't be put in a box, he keeps breaking out, and that happens outside the RCC as well.

It used to be when the train pulled into town the people would scramble to get on as quickly as possible. Once the conductor hollered out “All ABOARD!“ there were only seconds before the train left the station. Once the train pulled away the only way to get to your destination was to walk. And that could be dangerous. The same holds true in regard to Church, Peter, our conductor has shouted out – listen:

But Peter standing up with the eleven told faithful that had gathered “Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God has made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.” (Acts 2:36)

The significance relating to the 'Kingdom of God' (that is the Church) should be apparent. If you were a Jew standing in the crowd you'd know exactly what it meant. Most know it, but just in case, the etymology of the word 'Christ' is as much a title as it is a name, in fact it was considered even more so a title in the earlier days of the Church. Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias or 'the anointed one.' There is no need to explain that the Messiah is to be the Deliverer of the Jews, bringing with him 'His Kingdom'. It's Peter's pronouncement that is important; it 'fingers' Jesus as being the Christ, the Messiah. Peter's announcement was meant to remove any doubt to the faithful. That is as St. John the Baptist pronounced, “The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:14) and that Jesus stated that he was greater than Solomon– and there was no greater king in Judaism. (Cf. Luke 11:31). Jesus selected and appointed the Twelve and gave them and only the Twelve the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 13:11). At Cæsarea Philippi Jesus commissioned and established an office in the person of Peter, declared he would build a Church, promised to increase and protect that Church (Matthew 16:15 sqq.) Then he commissioned his Church, “Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19)

Peter's announcement to the Jewish followers of Christ was the pronouncement that the Kingdom HAS ARRIVED, is LIVING, and will flourish in the protection of the Holy Spirit: ALL ABOARD!

You do know that the intellect reasons in the soul. It's to the soul that we look to see if the wisdom is good or if the wisdom is evil. It's here that washing occurs. So, paraclete might be right, at least in a perverse sense, there is a 'brainwashing.' The reality though is contextually much different; I would call it a 'soulwashing'. You see it's only in the Roman Catholic Church is there a cleansing, a washing of the soul, allowing a Divine Wisdom to flourish.

JoeT

You see it’s only in the Roman Catholic Church is there a cleansing, a washing of the soul, allowing a Divine Wisdom to flourish.
Good grief! So there'll be only RCC members in heaven? Oh, right. I get it. The rest of us will be in purgatory, repenting of our sin of being belonging to the wrong church. Isn't that fundamentalism? "I'm right, and you're not!"

You are still just repeating what you have said. How do you know that the "one and only true Church prophesied" is the RCC? You are evading this question from the beginning.

See: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/true-church-started-jesus-christ-455556-2.html#post2265288



There is no prophesy claiming the true Church to be the RC. That is lie number one. The Apostles did not establish the RC and that is lie number two. If you don't want your claims to be called a lie then back it up with evidence from scripture.

See: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/true-church-started-jesus-christ-455556-2.html#post2265288



This is why we say; "Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.


Quote the Bible friend. Let's have some quotes from the word of God.

I don’t worship a book; I’ll quote whoever I please.


In the Old Testament prophecy there is a conjoined and parallel prophecy of the Messiah and Christ's Kingdom, the Kingdom of God; the Catholic Church.


There is that empty claim again.

All that’s been seen thus far from the book-only crowd is empty air. You might want to show, using biblical verse – your rules, just who what and where the Church is. Have you noticed, that I have been the only one that has offered ‘Scriptural’ proof thus far – is there some sort of problem?


This prophecy cannot be separated from Christ. To do so denies His prophetic Messianic mission. Divine Prophecy foreshadows Christ establishment of a Kingdom which will reign over the world regenerating Israel. This prophecy requires Christ’s personal presence bestowing a the keys to new Church with a specific sacrificial system in his role as Messiah (Psalm 109:4). Its tenets will be based on Divine revelation as her high priest (Isaiah 66:18; Jeremiah 33:20). And her government will originate from the Messiah as its prophet (Malachi 1:11). According to prophecy the new Church will be supernaturally revealed by Christ.


This is everything about the new Church. Nothing in here to support that the "new Church" is the RC.

The only Church that existed from the time of Christ’s ascension till 1520, till now the only True Church, has been the Catholic Church.


If I can show from Old Testament Scriptures how the One and only One True Church is foretold as being the established here on earth, then how does the claim that a plethora of Churches constitute ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH, ONE SPIRIT IN CHRIST? Or how does the claim of One Man equals One Church find any validity?


You just do not understand that a Church does not refer to a denomination but a group of believers. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "Church".

There was no other Church that was commissioned by Christ. If there was, show it in the Scriptures. Can you show scripturally where your Church came from? How did it get from 2,000 years ago till today?


The prophets of the Old Testament were told of a New Kingdom, a New Covent, to be consecrated by Christ for the salvation of the faithful with a particular sacrificial system having an authority emanating from the Messiah. Failing this understanding fails to see Christ’s prophetic role as the Messiah therein denying God’s revelation. The point is that it is this Church that was consecrated by the Divine to be Holy.

There is but One True Church of Jesus Christ


True but is that one true Church of Jesus Christ the RC? That is what you have failed to answer. How is it not? Let’s see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?


You’re absolutely right; before you enter a house you should know the owner is Christ. That’s why I’m Catholic. All other houses are under different management.


I could say that the RC is the one that has a different management. You are the one who is making this kind of insulting statements and not any of us. If you don't stop such kind of talk then the moderators will terminate this post also.

Insulting, how so? Can you point to a single statement that wasn’t in accord with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or Scripture? Thus far, I'm the only one that has provided meaningful verse; have you, has anybody else?

JoeT

Good grief! So there'll be only RCC members in heaven? Oh, right. I get it. The rest of us will be in purgatory, repenting of our sin of being belonging to the wrong church. Isn't that fundamentalism? "I'm right, and you're not!"

Interesting idea; but I didn’t mention 'sin,' 'heaven', 'hell' or 'purgatory.' My reference was to 'Wisdom;' not knowledge, but the knowhow to knowhow, i.e. wisdom. Also, note that there has been no condemnation in any of my statements.

JoeT

Also, note that there has been no condemnation in any of my statements.

It doesn't matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, 'equal' to your Church?
This doesn't count?

I don't worship a book; I'll quote whoever I please.
Then I will quote Luther with as much authority.

All that's been seen thus far from the book-only crowd is empty air. You might want to show, using biblical verse – your rules, just who what and where the Church is. Have you noticed, that I have been the only one that has offered 'Scriptural' proof thus far – is there some sort of problem?
I have more than once in other similar threads. In this one, you stepped right over it.

How is it not? Let's see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?
In 0 A.D. Hmmmm. Now you're really reaching.

This doesn't count?

No, it doesn’t count. It’s not a condemnation. If you see it that way, you’ll need to explain how because I don't see it?

JoeT

See: [url]]

I don't worship a book; I'll quote whoever I please.

So then if you can't "prove" what you say from the Bible you will prove it from another source


The only Church that existed from the time of Christ's ascension till 1520, till now the only True Church, has been the Catholic Church.

I'm sure those in orthadox churches would be interested to debate this idea




How is it not? Let's see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?



JoeT

In your rush to prove your argument you have got a little carried away Joe. There was only paganism in Rome in 0 AD. Are you implying that the RCC is a pagan expression of Christianity?This may be closer to the truth than you know.

Joe to get away from all this emotive nonsense and get back to facts. Have you read the Books written by Peter? Nowhere in these books does he tell us that he is called to lead the Church. He is at great pains to contend with us to believe in Christ and not the fabricated doctrines of men. Nowhere does he talk about this great collective, the Church, in fact, I think he makes it plain that there are Christians in various places who are not connected by a common leadership other than the Holy Spirit..

Then I will quote Luther with as much authority.

Ok, that'll be fun.


I have more than once in other similar threads. In this one, you stepped right over it.

Most of the time, it is the Evangelist or the Protestant (non-Catholics) who complain that Catholics don't use verse to support their position; that we quote doctrine or other Catholics. This time I did both, I explained my view what a 'Church' is and used verse to support it. So, now we should not quote the Bible?

In which of your posts, 28,27,24,21, and 17 did you quote scripture? Among indignations you happened to mentioned Acts – was that meant to be significant?



In 0 A.D. Hmmmm. Now you're really reaching.

Technically, you might say that. I think most peg the birth date of Christ between 6 B.C and 6 A.D. The authors I'm familiar with would suggest 5-6 B.C.

JoeT

Ok, that’ll be fun.
Luther certain has as much authority as the guys you quoted.

In which of your posts, 28,27,24,21, and 17 did you quote scripture? Among indignations you happened to mentioned Acts – was that meant to be significant?
The one in which I quoted Jesus.

So then if you can't "prove" what you say from the Bible you will prove it from another source

I don't believe the statement was made in relationship to making proof. My point was that I'm not restricted to 'bible-only'. You maybe, inhisservice maybe are restricted to bible-only but I'm not. But, to think of it, I haven't seen much more than complaints, at least little verse to prove or show any other Church.


I'm sure those in Orthodox churches would be interested to debate this idea

I'm sure.


In your rush to prove your argument you have got a little carried away Joe. There was only paganism in Rome in 0 AD. Are you implying that the RCC is a pagan expression of Christianity? This may be closer to the truth than you know.

Talk about 'emotive nonsense.'


Joe to get away from all this emotive nonsense and get back to facts. Have you read the Books written by Peter? Nowhere in these books does he tell us that he is called to lead the Church. He is at great pains to contend with us to believe in Christ and not the fabricated doctrines of men. Nowhere does he talk about this great collective, the Church, in fact, I think he makes it plain that there are Christians in various places who are not connected by a common leadership other than the Holy Spirit..

Why would Peter be worried about the fabrication of doctrine if there was no Church to recognize a doctrine? If each congregation was free to believe as they willed, how or why would Peter be concerned with doctrine at all? Why would Peter expect anybody to listen to him if he didn't think he had the authority to write? These letters (among others) are called 'Catholic' because they are not addressed to a single congregation, but to the corporate Church. If no corporate Church existed who would he be writing to? If it were a friend or associate, it would be addressed to Peter's friend, wouldn't it?

But, let's look at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century writers who knew and studied under the contemporaries of Peter.


Clement of Alexandria: "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian: "For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James: "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


Origen: "[i]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

All of these knew Peter's role in the Church. I'm more than willing to provide any additional information you might need. But, the issue here isn't Peter.

JoeT

Come on with the Luther quotes, since he accepted Peter's authority, ( Keys of the Kingdom teaching)

It doesn’t matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, ‘equal’ to your Church?

No, it doesn’t count. It’s not a condemnation. If you see it that way, you’ll need to explain how because I don't see it?

If it's not a condemnation, what is it? You are saying, "The RCC is the only True Church. All others are not worth consideration."

Come on with the Luther quotes, since he accepted Peter's authority, ( Keys of the Kingdom teaching)
I LOVE that the nuns have returned!!

Luther did not acknowledge that Peter was the first pope.

If it's not a condemnation, what is it? You are saying, "The RCC is the only True Church. All others are not worth consideration."



It doesn't matter which Church we walk into? Do you mean to imply that one Church is as good as another? Then we can say the Catholic Church is in every way, at the very least, 'equal' to your Church?

The quote is taken out of context in the sense that it was a response to comments made by paraclete. Also it is mischaracterized by your paraphrase – I didn't imply, or ask, if the others were, or were, not worth consideration. I ask if the RCC could be taken as an equal to his Church. I don't think it's worth going through all the details here and I still don't understand why you find it offensive. Nonetheless, you have my assurances it was never intended to be offensive to anybody.

JoeT

The quote is taken out of context in the sense that it was a response to comments made by paraclete. Also it is mischaracterized by your paraphrase – I didn’t imply, or ask, if the others were, or were, not worth consideration. I ask if the RCC could be taken as an equal to his Church. I don’t think it’s worth going through all the details here and I still don’t understand why you find it offensive. Nonetheless, you have my assurances it was never intended to be offensive to anybody.

JoeT

Well Joe it's nice to know you never intended to be offensive but telling other Christians they are excluded from the true church is offensive. I regard all Christian Churches who hold to a common doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ alone as equal parts of the body of Christ

Well Joe it's nice to know you never intended to be offensive but telling other Christians they are excluded from the true church is offensive. I regard all Christian Churches who hold to a common doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ alone as equal parts of the body of Christ

I excluded nobody from the One True Church of Jesus Christ. The doors are always open; do go in if you want.

The terms 'to believe in Christ alone', 'to believe the Lord alone, or 'to believe in Jesus alone' do not appear in Scripture in relationship to salvation. In fact, to have eternal life, i.e. salvation, at the very least there are two divine precepts required of an individual who are morally responsible and who aren't ignorant (we aren't talking intellect). First is Baptism (Cf. John 3:3-7) and the second is found in John 6:54-55, Christ said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” Any Christian can baptize another in the name of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' but the consecrated Eucharist can only be found in the Catholic Church.

If we understand ourselves to be adopted sons of God, then we are bond in a spiritual brotherhood. Christ commands, “That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21)

There can be but One faith, One Church, a unity of faith:


• Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);

• He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),

• to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);

• to a vine and its branches,

• to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).

• Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and

• He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).

• Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).

• Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).

• And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).

• To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

• Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).

• Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
Bullet Source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm)


JoeT

JoeT777

In your post number 1020 you have worked under the continuous assumption that Peter has been given authority by Jesus Christ when I have proved that that is false. Then you still keep explaining that there was a Church established at the time of Jesus Christ but not giving any evidence that it was the RC. All you want to do is to state your blind beliefs over and over time and again.

Good grief! So there'll be only RCC members in heaven? Oh, right. I get it. The rest of us will be in purgatory, repenting of our sin of being belonging to the wrong church. Isn't that fundamentalism? "I'm right, and you're not!"

No. Purgatory does not exist. That was cooked up by the RC. So that would the rest of us would go straight to Hell!!

JoeT777


I don’t worship a book; I’ll quote whoever I please.

That would you don't have any valid claims but just hollow ones. It would also prove to everyone that you just are not interested in any authentic data.


All that’s been seen thus far from the book-only crowd is empty air. You might want to show, using biblical verse – your rules, just who what and where the Church is. Have you noticed, that I have been the only one that has offered ‘Scriptural’ proof thus far – is there some sort of problem?

First of all, all the scripture you quoted did not support your points and therefore were not proofs. Secondly I had quoted a lot of verses which you just ignored.

The word "Church" means "a gathering", a religious congregation.


Church - all believers
When ever the Bible talked about the church it was talking about the gathering of the believers.

Act 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

These verse also shows that.

Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Act 15:4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders, to whom they told all that God had done through them.

Act 15:22 Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church, decided to choose some men from the group and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

Rom 16:23 My host Gaius, in whose house the church meets...




Peter's position in the Church

If Peter was revered as a Pope is today the following behavior would not have happened. Those who believed that circumcision was necessary actually questioned Peter and Peter had to offer an explanation to them.

Act 11:2 When Peter went to Jerusalem, those who were in favor of circumcising Gentiles criticized him, saying,
Act 11:3 "You were a guest in the home of uncircumcised Gentiles, and you even ate with them!"


Now let us look at what Peter himself had said about the Lord.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Peter hear reveals the God's view of people. God considers everyone equal.

Paul once opposed Peter and said to his face that he was wrong. That is hardly something that one would do to the Pope or a leader.

James
When we read the Bible we might feel that Apostle James was an important person because he was one of the three that Jesus always took with Him on important occasions. That James was killed. But another James is seen in acts. In fact even Peter treated him as though he was higher in authority.

Act 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.

The following verses shows that James was someone important in the Church.

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Paul also says that James was one of the pillars of the church and seems to treat him equal to Peter.

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me....

Also note this verse:

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Peter seems to back off when people from James came. Thus James is equal in position to Peter or higher than him. Some scholars believe that this James was the leader of the Church and not Peter if at all anyone was considered a leader.

So who is this James? Paul reveals his identity.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Jesus had brothers? Mary had other children? A catholic would find this too foolish to believe because they have been taught that Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus Christ.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

I hope everyone reading this goes through their to see what I have quoted is true.

JoeT777


The only Church that existed from the time of Christ’s ascension till 1520, till now the only True Church, has been the Catholic Church.


The empty claim again. What is your evidence?


There was no other Church that was commissioned by Christ. If there was, show it in the Scriptures. Can you show scripturally where your Church came from? How did it get from 2,000 years ago till today?

You simply don't understand the meaning of the word "church". First understand what a church means. Then you will understand the rest.


How is it not? Let’s see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?

You want me to say that again. Okay hear it is. You don't understand the meaning of the word "church". First learn that.


I don’t believe the statement was made in relationship to making proof. My point was that I’m not restricted to ‘bible-only’. You maybe, inhisservice maybe are restricted to bible-only but I’m not. But, to think of it, I haven’t seen much more than complaints, at least little verse to prove or show any other Church.

I am restricted to God's word, His Scriptures. If you are not restricted that that then that explains why you are in error.


If each congregation was free to believe as they willed, how or why would Peter be concerned with doctrine at all?

Incorrect. All the congregation believed the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. They did not believe anything they willed.


These letters (among others) are called ‘Catholic’ because they are not addressed to a single congregation, but to the corporate Church. If no corporate Church existed who would he be writing to?

They were called catholic by the RC. This idea also stems from your ignorance about the meaning of the word "Church".

As for your quotations you quote from RC writers to support your claims about RC!! I wish you had a little more understanding.

JoeT777

Now I am about to refer to your post number 1021.


In fact, to have eternal life, i.e. salvation, at the very least there are two divine precepts required of an individual who are morally responsible and who aren’t ignorant (we aren’t talking intellect). First is Baptism (Cf. John 3:3-7)

The prerequisite for eternal life is only faith. John 3:3-7 is not talking about baptism in the first place.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Now coming to John 6:54-55. That scripture must be understood. We know that all non-catholics do not "eat His flesh and drink His blood". But we see that they are alive and walking around. So what life is Jesus Christ talking about? He is talking about spiritual life and not physical life. That also means that He is not talking about His physical body or blood.

The prerequisite for eternal life is only faith. John 3:3-7 is not talking about baptism in the first place.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Now coming to John 6:54-55. That scripture must be understood. We know that all non-catholics do not "eat His flesh and drink His blood". But we see that they are alive and walking around. So what life is Jesus Christ talking about? He is talking about spiritual life and not physical life. That also means that He is not talking about His physical body or blood.

Suggesting that John 6 is metaphoric denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. He was the King of the Jews, you do remember that don’t you; He certainly wasn’t a French or German on holiday.

Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. What got the Pharaoh so mad that he went after Moses in a rage? The Pharaoh’s son was killed by the curse he had intended for Moses. Moses was warned and the ‘BLOOD’ of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door headers of all Israel so that the curse would ‘PASS OVER’. Since then, part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home of the Jew there was the custom of ‘Pesachim’ which included a search the house for leaven bread. The household was cleared of common bread (leavened) which represented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul’s words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ’s and the Twelve.

One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies took place over about 15-days with the festivals ending on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth). On day 14, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and sacrificed a lamb, part of which was carried home accompanied with the blood. The first born ceremonially ate the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. In Judaism, this is a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice which was sacrificial prayers. We know this because of the presence of blood related to the meat, everywhere we see in scripture the reference to sacrificial meat, we’ll most always find some relationship to ‘blood.‘ Spiritual sacrifices didn't include the reference to ‘blood’. With this knowledge we can re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.

Most of John 5 regards other spiritual rituals however there is a sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R’glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism. But, what’s important to us is where Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appeals to their intellect as Jews - no demand for faith is made as yet, not to the heart. The Importance is that the intellect is required of the Twelve. The question asked by Christ at the end of this chapter is cataclysmic to Christians without a teaching Magisterium, “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

It’s a good question isn’t it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you’re disagreeable, so let’s continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.

Pasch was at hand, a sacrificial lamb was required, and for the first born of the Kingdom – among 5,000 were a special Twelve. Notice it is the men that are told to sit, notice that it is bread that is feed them – we’re not told; it's likely unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder. To complete the custom we need the blood sacrifice of the Lamb for the Passover meat of the first-born.

Christ tells the first-born of his Kingdom, eat meat. He’s definitely not playing to the chick-Pharisee’s cow who wants moo miracles, you might say, ‘Punt the burger, pass the Chikin”! Not, at all! Christ says Moses' bread didn’t save. Why, because the bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity. The intellectual bread only lasts for this world. But, Christ will provide the beef that sticks to the soul's ribs, he says “I am that bread of life," the knowledge of the life. I am the meat that death passes over, I am the meat of life, a flesh for the life of the spiritual world; a meat for the first-born of the Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born in His Kingdom is given to us all; death will pass over.

Christ tells the Jews in John 6 that he is a REAL sacrifice, the REAL meat, the REAL presence of everlasting life. “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:54). The REAL PRESENCE of CHRIST.


JoeT

So who is this James? Paul reveals his identity.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Jesus had brothers? Mary had other children? A catholic would find this too foolish to believe because they have been taught that Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus Christ.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

I hope everyone reading this goes through their to see what I have quoted is true.

Jesus is a descendent of David and the Messiah then we must conclude that Mary is the Mother of God; as her title would indicate as well as exceedingly blessed. I'll go so far as to say, that if Mary isn't Virgin, isn't Ever Virgin then there is no Messiah; as the prodigy of woman Christ would never have been accepted by any Jew, but more importantly prophesy would have lied.

The siblings of Christ are shown in the Gospel of Matthew 13:55 are obviously clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom. Clansmen who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following St. Jerome argues passionately that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:


I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother to insist that Jesus had siblings, then wouldn't that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense. [I assumed you knew the custom of the Jews with regard to widows. At or near death, the eldest remaining sibling would handover care of his mother and sisters to an immediate male family member for care – usually the eldest of the remaining sons. It would have been a BIG insult for Jesus, as the eldest son of a widow, to hand over his Mother's care to somebody outside the family. You're not claiming John was a sibling of Christ too, are you?]

The Blessed Mother Mary has a singular way of getting to the subjective heart of the 'bible-only' Christian faith. She presents a threat to Protestantism and Evangelism, simply because Christ can't be re-defined outside of the context of her virginity. Thus, to acknowledge Mary's title, 'Theotokos,' is to reject the Kingdom of God. Deny Mary and you've rejected the Messiah, reject Mary and you reject the Three Persons of the Trinity, and refuse Mary and you've refused hope of eternal life in heaven. I explain it this way:

God preserves Mary from original sin so that His Justice will prevail. “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15). In His infinite mercy God overthrows the infernal serpent through the Blessed Virgin. Those who eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would stain and subjugate Mary to Satan would do well to look to the Catholic faith hold Blessed Virgin singularly preserved exempt from ALL stain of sin original sin or private sin through God's grace. Furthermore, had there been no means made available, Divine Justice would not have permitted a single human soul in heaven. A single sin shall not enter heaven

“For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man and God was the perfect sacrifice. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. These are two seeming diametrically opposed absolutes; one that all men are born with original sin, the stain of sin, the other that Christ was perfect without sin. But Christ is both man and God perfect on both accounts. As a result, there can only be one solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a women whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, He would be born of a woman that hadn't known sin because of His residence within her.

Given the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 “How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN” we see God's mystical solution, rightly we conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was also infused into the soul of Jesus. At that moment Mary's Womb had to have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark remains pure as did the Virgin Mary in her life of celibacy. Being literally full of grace, full of God, would we, could we, expect less? Would the Jewish Nation accept a Paschal Lamb any less than spotless, flawless?

St. Jerome ventures still further;


…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. See Ex 25-31 and Ex 39-40. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur. Beseleel along with Ooliab built the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle we move from outside inward we to a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ's warning, “narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the perfect Lamb is sacrificed.

The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant

God was resident in a place made holy by his commands to Moses to keep the Tabernacle clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God; would you suggest that it reside in an unholy place? Why then would Jesus, who is both man and God, the Word Incarnate, reside in any less a holy place?

The Tabernacle was the birth place of the Jewish religion as well as our Catholic faith. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant. But Matthew doesn't stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” And too, we shouldn't forget that with Christ's birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God's Kingdom on earth.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into Christ at the moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, who was man with God infused. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it's not rent, but passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve). These loaves were consumed by the high Priests who were said to receive Divine knowledge. As you probably know, a Divine Hope is born out of knowledge that gives hope of obtaining the Vision of the Divine.

And just as the Jewish Kingdom of faith was born in the Ark of the Covenant, so was the Church of Jesus Christ infused in a human Ark, an ark like Noah's carrying the future of man across the waters of death, i.e. sin, within the womb of Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death in sin to landfall - our salvation. And when He hung on the Cross, he gave up the ghost with a loud cry; and it was then “the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.” His death was the beginning; it was then that the veil was rent with the birth of the newly commissioned Church, built on Peter commissioned to minister to salvation. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being a continuation of sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New, body, soul and Divinity contained within Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16 we see sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God.

Therefore we can only conclude that Mary is Ever Virgin and immaculate. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb. As in the time of Moses, when the Tabernacle was moved, the site became Holy remaining clean. As when Christ was born, so too was Mary. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle could never be desecrated.

More important still, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn't be 'perfect' preventing every Jew of the day to this day from seeing Christ as God. To say dismiss Mary's virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man – and in order to be God would require 'creation'. How can the uncreated be created? To dismiss that Mary was Ever Virgin is to say that one can be in physical contact with Grace itself and can turn away – once again making God back into man.

JoeT

Joe Stop trying to relate to God on an intellectual basis. Whether Mary is an eternal virgin or not has no bearing on our salvation. Mary only needed to be righteous under the law to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit to facilitiate the birth of Jesus. Your dissertation makes Jesues something other than man, and a man was needed for the sacrifice for sin

paraclete.
I think NOT.
I'm sure Joe is right on that.
Mary is very important to the birth of God the Son, Jesus Christ.
Without Mary giving birth there is no salvation.
But that does not change that fact that Jesus is both man and God. I'm surprised that you can seem to see that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Mary is very important to the birth of God the Son, Jesus Christ. Without Mary giving birth there is no salvation.

He didn't say Mary didn't give birth to Jesus. Of course she did!

paraclete.
I think NOT.
I'm sure Joe is right on that.
Mary is very important to the birth of God the Son, Jesus Christ.
Without Mary giving birth there is no salvation.
But that does not change that fact that Jesus is both man and God. I'm surprised that you can seem to see that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred we seem to be getting into a circular debate here, the question isn't whether Jesus is both God and man, but as to the fact that he needed to be man in order to make the Sacrifice to cover our sin. Obviously for Jesus to be man he needed to be born of woman, and not be created in a separate creation by God. So Mary's importance lies in the fact she is woman, not in that she contributed some super human quality which no other woman possessed.

Joe Stop trying to relate to God on an intellectual basis. So, I should relate to God on a stupid basis?


Whether Mary is an eternal virgin or not has no bearing on our salvation.If you don't believe in the trinity or if you believe that God is so common that he is flesh and blood by a woman, that is the seed of man, or if you don't believe the Nicene Creed, or if you don't believe in Divine prophecy and revelation is meaningless, or if you don't believe that Scripture is Divine Truth then I guess I can see how the Ever Virgin Mary is meaningless.


Mary only needed to be righteous under the law to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit to facilitate the birth of Jesus. Your dissertation makes Jesus something other than man, and a man was needed for the sacrifice for sinAbsolutely not, that was the point of writing. 'All you need is Love' is a song title not a Church with all those things necessary as a means of salvation.

JoeT

Fred we seem to be getting into a circular debate here, the question isn't whether Jesus is both God and man, but as to the fact that he needed to be man in order to make the Sacrafice to cover our sin. Obviously for Jesus to be man he needed to be born of woman, and not be created in a seperate creation by God. so Mary's importance lies in the fact she is woman, not in that she contributed some super human quality which no other woman possessed.

Again, you’ve completely missed the point. I take for granted that you believe in the Trinity, that Christ is both God and man, and all those other things I’ve enumerated. The point of my ‘Mary’ post was that by denying her virginity, her blessedness, her holiness, you’ve denied the Truth in Scriptures themselves along with all those enumerated attributes of Christ; that is whether you recognize the error.

JoeT

The point of my ‘Mary’ post was that by denying her virginity, her blessedness, her holiness, you’ve denied the Truth in Scriptures themselves
As far as I could see, Paraclete did not deny her virginity, nor does Protestantism. It's mentioned in all three major creeds.

As far as I could see, Paraclete did not deny her virginity, nor does Protestantism. It's mentioned in all three major creeds.

I understood something else. Looking back, I could have been wrong. Maybe if he has time he can make it clear.

JoeT

paraclete,
Who is saying that Mary had a super human quality?
I know of none other than she gave a virgin birth to Jesus.
Is that a superhuman quality?
I GUESS that some might think so.
But the importance of Mary and who and what she was is often overlooked by some folks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
Who is saying that Mary had a super human quality?
I know of none other than she gave a virgin birth to Jesus.
Is that a superhuman quality?
I GUESS that some might think so.
But the importance of Mary and who and what she was is often overlooked by some folks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I'm guessing 'Clete is questioning the Ever Virgin aspect.

Wondergirl,
If so why.
I have no trouble with that. If fact I don't care if she was or not.
I know most Catholics think the ever virgin theology is important but I have not, so far, been convinced of that.
But to me Mary is my step-mother in heaven.
The mother of Jesus of whom I am a brother.
Thanks be to God and praise Him,
Fred

paraclete,
Who is saying that Mary had a super human quality?
I know of none other than she gave a virgin birth to Jesus.
Is that a superhuman quality?
I GUESS that some might think so.
But the importance of Mary and who and what she was is often overlooked by some folks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Excellent point.

So, I should relate to God on a stupid basis?

Now you are being stupid. Relating to God is about Faith not about intellect but about the Spirit


If you don't believe in the trinity or if you believe that God is so common that he is flesh and blood by a woman, that is the seed of man, or if you don't believe the Nicene Creed, or if you don't believe in Divine prophecy and revelation is meaningless, or if you don't believe that Scripture is Divine Truth then I guess I can see how the Ever Virgin Mary is meaningless.

So when ever someone doesn't agree with you you spit the dummy and have a good old rave about any subject but the one we were discussing. How old are you joe, 10? Nowhere in Scripture does it say Mary was an eternal virgin, that is intellectual garbage and completely unnecessary for salvation


Absolutely not, that was the point of writing. 'All you need is Love' is a song title not a Church with all those things necessary as a means of salvation.

JoeT

All these things necessary for salvation? What things? Joe you have just demonstrated you don't know Scripture. Only one thing is necessary for salvation Joe. That is belief and profession of Jesus Christ nothing else is necessary. There is a difference between faith and fruit.

paraclete,
I think you are missing the point.
Without a virgin Mary there would be no Jesus Christ both God and man to later die for us.
Therefore no salvation.
God is the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE.
He does things His way for His reasons not ours because He loves us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
I think you are missing the point.
Without a virgin Mary there would be no Jesus Christ both God and man to later die for us.
Therefore no salvation.
God is the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE.
He does things His way for His reasons not ours because He loves us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, you miss the point, Mary was a willing vessel, so that's why we called her blessed but your argument holds true for all of Jesus line back to Adam and we know how screwed up he was, he provided the reason why we need salvation. Salvation comes not from Mary but Christ alone. What the whole things shows is that there was only one righteous enough to pay the price and that was Jesus, so let's forget the maryolarty and worship the true savour.

paraclete,
Perhaps the reason to call Mary blessed is the same reason
For me to be called blessed or perhaps even you IF you have been blessed by God.
The bible tells us about Mary. Perhaps you should re-read the annunciation portion where the angel tells Mary that she has been blessed.
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I'll go by what the bible says as quoted above.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777


Suggesting that John 6 is metaphoric denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.

No it does not. It is obvious that John 6:53 and 54 are metaphoric. Verse 53 goes like this: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. If that verse is taken literally then that would mean that would mean that every non-catholic individual has "no life in him" meaning he or she is not alive. Is that what Our Lord is saying? Obviously no. That sentence is most obviously not to be taken literally.

Then the next three paragraph what you wrote was true information. But then in the next again you went off track. Here it is:


It’s a good question isn’t it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you’re disagreeable, so let’s continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.

Jesus asked "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? ". He was not saying that to believe in Him belief in Moses was a prerequisite. "Writings" is the key word in that verse. Moses wrote about God's creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah etc. He also wrote about God's covenant with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Moses' writings contained man's fall. God's plan of salvation, God's promise of a Messiah and the Laws. So Jesus was saying that if one does not believe in all these they cannot believe in Him.


Jesus is a descendent of David and the Messiah then we must conclude that Mary is the Mother of God; as her title would indicate as well as exceedingly blessed.

That is what the RC teaches you by their doctrine. The scriptures teaches otherwise. Mary was a blessed lady chosen to give birth to the Messiah. But that does not make her the mother of God. She was a human being, born of a human parents and was married to a man. Immaculate conception of Mary is a hoax spun by the RC and the scripture does not support it. So she was a human being and cannot be called the mother of God.


I’ll go so far as to say, that if Mary isn’t Virgin, isn’t Ever Virgin then there is no Messiah;

Why so may I ask?


The siblings of Christ are shown in the Gospel of Matthew 13:55 are obviously clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom.

It is most certainly not obvious. The verse just states brothers. Now brother can mean clansmen as you say and they can also mean real brothers. Now if you would believe that the bible was not speaking about real brothers it is because RC has woven a doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Only the existence of this doctrine would lead someone look for some other explanation for the word "brother" mentioned there in. In the absence of this doctrine no one would get that meaning out of it.

Looking at it another way is virginity a virtue? It is and it symbolizes purity. However it is a virtue only till the girl is married. If someone tries to be a virgin after she her marriage then it is hardly a virtue. It is in fact a violation of responsibility. This we see in 1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband..

Moreover what is our Lord's view on relationship of husband and wife? The Holy Spirit has revealed this to us through Paul.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. If Mary did not have other children it would mean she has violated this.


Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.”

We know that John's father was not Joseph but Zebedee from the scripture. Therefore not taking this literally would be foolish. But why would you not want to take a "his brother and his mother" literally when the scripture does not say that Mary did not have other children?


[I assumed you knew the custom of the Jews with regard to widows. At or near death, the eldest remaining sibling would handover care of his mother and sisters to an immediate male family member for care – usually the eldest of the remaining sons. It would have been a BIG insult for Jesus, as the eldest son of a widow, to hand over his Mother’s care to somebody outside the family. You’re not claiming John was a sibling of Christ too, are you?

Thank you for that piece of information. However the scripture makes it clear that Jesus' brother did not believe in Him while His mother did. So it is only natural that He trusts the care of His mother to someone who believed in Him. After all you know how hostile the situation had been for the apostles in Acts when they went out preaching.


She presents a threat to Protestantism

How?


Deny Mary and you’ve rejected the Messiah, reject Mary and you reject the Three Persons of the Trinity, and refuse Mary and you’ve refused hope of eternal life in heaven. I explain it this way:

How? Scripturally explain this to us.


“I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15).

That is BLASPHEMOUS.

Gen 3:15 I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring's heel."

It is not the woman who crushes his head. That Bible is corrupt. No other versions it translated like this. No wonder catholics don't understand many things. Their text book has been tampered with.


... To say that Mary was born with sin means that the ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ resided in filth...

Didn't Jesus Christ come into this world? Is this world not a filthy place? Did he not take all our sins (filth) on Him? So your entire argument goes out of the window. More over "Abraham believe and it was counted as righteousness to him". Even if Mary was a sinful woman she believed and that would be counted to her as righteousness. All I can say is you are mis-taught.

inhisservice,
Sorry, but Joe id correct.
Those passages about Jesus flesh IS food indeed and blood IS drink indeed are to be take literally.
They are the Eucharist and the path to eternal like for as Jesus said about those who partake of it, "I will raise them up on the last day".
It does not mean that others who do not partake can not go to heaven there are other means.
But IT DOES mean that those who do worthily will be in heaven.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Suggesting that John 6 is metaphoric denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.

No it does not. It is obvious that John 6:53 and 54 are metaphoric. Verse 53 goes like this: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. If that verse is taken literally then that would mean that would mean that every non-catholic individual has "no life in him" meaning he or she is not alive. Is that what Our Lord is saying? Obviously no. That sentence is most obviously not to be taken literally.

Then the next three paragraph what you wrote was true information. But then in the next again you went off track. Here it is:

Why sure it's literal, unembroidered. I can see how you can take verses John 6:26-48 (51) metaphorically, but then you're left with verses John 6:52-72 which are emphatically literal; even Protestant writers such as Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others agree it's literal. These verses deal directly to the question, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" How then is this bread “Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead?” It's in the Pascal Lamb, that perfect sacrifice, who was sacrificed and eaten. Like the death that Passed Over the Jew in Egypt, the blood placed on the jambs and headers ward off spiritual death. “He that eats this bread shall live for ever" unless it is meat and blood of the 'sacrificial lamb' the 'real presence'. That takes care of the meat and blood but the bread is also clear John 6:27, 52. NEW ADVENT BIBLE: John 6 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh006.htm#vrs54)

When using metaphors to teach, Christ most always explained the metaphors – unless of course it related to the Priestly Kingdom of Moses, this did not need an explanation. Three times he told the Pharisees how to obtain eternal life, once using metaphors. Three times the Jews didn't understand and finally walked off in disgust; as did most of Christ's disciples.

This was foretold in Isaiah, “feed your enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save you, and your Redeemer the Mighty One (Isaiah 49:26). If Christ didn't feed them flesh, then he wasn't the “Mighty One” now was he?



It's a good question isn't it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you're disagreeable, so let's continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn't as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.


Jesus asked "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? “ He was not saying that to believe in Him belief in Moses was a prerequisite. "Writings" is the key word in that verse. Moses wrote about God's creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah etc. He also wrote about God's covenant with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Moses' writings contained man's fall. God's plan of salvation, God's promise of a Messiah and the Laws. So Jesus was saying that if one does not believe in all these they cannot believe in Him.

This was the point, if you don't understand God's Plan given to Moses, unfolded in a Tabernacle (a tent), how then can you begin to understand the spiritualism imbued in the Eucharist. Moses didn't create a Kingdom of 'Pot Washers', it was these hypocrites that inhibited the 'spiritual' growth of Moses' Kingdom. Which should call to mind the metaphor of the fig tree failing to provide Christ with the 'first fruits'.



Jesus is a descendent of David and the Messiah then we must conclude that Mary is the Mother of God; as her title would indicate as well as exceedingly blessed.


That is what the RC teaches you by their doctrine. The scriptures teaches otherwise. Mary was a blessed lady chosen to give birth to the Messiah. But that does not make her the mother of God. She was a human being, born of a human parents and and was married to a man. Immaculate conception of Mary is a hoax spun by the RC and the scripture does not support it. So she was a human being and cannot be called the mother of God.


Yes, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, an Ever Virgin Mary.

If you reject Mary you reject Christ, if you reject His Church you reject Mary. You see, at least figuratively, when Christ handed over his Mother to John, he was handing over His Mother to the Church as John represented the Church. This is why we call the Church our Mother, that is the Mother of our faith in Christ.



I'll go so far as to say, that if Mary isn't Virgin, isn't Ever Virgin then there is no Messiah;

Why so may I ask?

I'll explain:

Failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with original sin and actual sin means that she was a slave to sin as are all of us born of man. The 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' would have been born out of a slave to the devil and resided in filth; thus such a person does not meet prophetically and divine requirement for perfection - not my requirement, but God's requirement to send the PERFECT Lamb and the Messiah. Such a person would be a freak of nature (that is spontaneous regeneration) or the seed of man (no God at all). If such occurred it would mean that God created God in the form of Christ, which of course is an absurdity; whatever is created by God cannot be God. Can the uncreated be created? Of lesser importance to dismiss the Ever Virgin Mary is to say that one can be in physical contact with the Fullness of Grace, you might say all Grace Personified, and then return to a life of sin.

JoeT

Yes, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, an Ever Virgin Mary.

If you reject May you reject Christ, if you reject His Church you reject Mary. You see, at least figuratively, when Christ handed over his Mother to John, he was handing over His Mother to the Church as John represented the Church. This is why we call the Church our Mother, that is the Mother of our faith in Christ.

Wait a minute here. YOU have steadfastly claimed that Peter is the father of your religion. Now you claim John and Mary? WHO IS IT?
How can Mary be ever virgin? If she had more than one child? She was married or not? And so you are trying to now claim that she went against mosaic law by not having relations with her husband during her entire married life? Joe, are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with original sin and actual sin means that she was a slave to sin as are all of us born of man. The ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ would have been born out of a slave to the devil and resided in filth; thus such a person does not meet prophetically and divine requirement for perfection - not my requirement, but God's requirement to send the PERFECT Lamb and the Messiah. Such a person would be a freak of nature (that is spontaneous regeneration) or the seed of man (no God at all). If such occurred it would mean that God created God in the form of Christ, which of course is an absurdity; whatever is created by God cannot be God. Can the uncreated be created? Of lesser importance to dismiss the Ever Virgin Mary is to say that one can be in physical contact with the Fullness of Grace, you might say all Grace Personified, and then return to a life of sin.

JoeT

Joe your argument fails on the Testimony of Christ himself. Why did Jesus need to undergo baptism to fulfill all righteousness? The reason is that he was in fact born into the same situation we're born into and that makes him true man. So how about stop copying the pat answers and start to understand what Scripture is actually saying

450donn,
Are you that mixed up or are you just trying to start an argument.
Peter was chosen to be the first LEADER of The Church, NOT The Church itself.
The Members of The early Church were The Church and trhat included John, the only apostle that was not slain.
Yet today the members of The Church are The Church, what Jesus called My Assembly in Aramaic words.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
Perhaps the reason to call Mary blessed is the same reason
for me to be called blessed or perhaps even you IF you have been blessed by God.
The bible tells us about Mary. Perhaps you should re-read the annunciation portion where the angel tells Mary that she has been blessed.
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I'll go by what the bible says as quoted above.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred
This is what the Bible I read from says about the annunciation

27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

I cannot read into that anything other than Mary was a person chosen by God to fulfill a purpose. As I said before a willing vessel and righteous under the Law. It makes it very plain the she is physically the descendent of David and we know that places her in the same situation as the rest of us. So Fred, I'll stick to the Scripture

paraclete,
From where did you scrape up that idea of Christ's baptism.
Please show me in THE BIBLE that says Jesus NEEDED to be baptized to wash away original sin.
Jesus was born sinless though the Holy Spirit and the immaculate Mary who was blessed as the bible says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

paraclete,
Yes, I will also stick to Scripture. There are several different versions of the Bible which choose some different words in translation.
In the version you used are these words "Greetings, you who are highly favored" which are the same as being blessed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
From where did you scrape up that idea of Christ's baptism.
Please show me in THE BIBLE that says Jesus NEEDED to be baptized to wash away original sin.
Jesus was born sinless though the Holy Spirit and the immaculate Mary who was blessed as the bible says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

I think you should show me in the Bible where it says we have original sin it might also answer your question.

paraclete,
Yes, I will also stick to Scripture. There are several different versions of the Bible which choose some different words in translation.
In the version you used are these words "Greetings, you who are highly favored" which are the same as being blessed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred they don't choose to use different words, they attempt to get an accurate translation; when the angel said blessed among women he used an entirely different word to that used in the previous sentence or at least that is how it is written in the greek. The root meaning is different one word is associated with grace the other with gifting

"Greetings, you who are highly favored" which are the same as being blessed.
Blessed does not equal sinless.

paraclete,
So you do not believe in original sin past down to us from Adam and Eve?
If so then it is useless to continue with the fact that baptism washes away that an other sins.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
So you do not believe in original sin past down to us from Adam and Eve?
If so then it is useless to continue with the fact that baptism washes away that an other sins.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you cannot discern what I believe, or do not believe, in, but apparently you are unable to provide the Biblical reference and so choose to shift the debate. This is problem with dogma, Fred, because so much of it is from Man. You just told me you go by Scripture

Joe, are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Not at all.

Asceticism isn't a New Testament invention. Various Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today's Church. Some Jews and some Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable. Some came from the Jewish sect of Pharisees, you might say they were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a 'Pharisee, the son Pharisees.' Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary may have lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn't have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. You can pick up on this by noticing little comments in scripture, e.g. 'Joseph was a just man' was no simple eulogy made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” Saint Josemaria Escriva.


Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May he always guard, protect and enlighten families. Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early tradition which included an Immaculate Mary. While we can't rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they tell of the nature of early Christian worship. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it ispseudography. In any event The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. At least it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn't a recent construct.

JoeT

paraclete,
Apparently you do not wish to answer my question.
Where was a question mark at the end of the sentence.
If you want biblical verses I suggest that you look up all the referrerences to the word baptism in the bible.
There is a lot of them and they provide much information, much more than I can take the time to post here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
Thanks much for that Joe,
Pax Christi,
Fred

Not at all.

Asceticism isn’t a New Testament invention. Various Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. Some Jews and some Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises and fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable. Some came from the Jewish sect of Pharisees, you might say they were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary may have lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn’t have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. You can pick up on this by noticing little comments in scripture, e.g. ‘Joseph was a just man’ was no simple eulogy made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” Saint Josemaria Escriva.


Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May he always guard, protect and enlighten families. Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early Christian tradition which included an Immaculate Mary. While we can’t rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they tell early Christian worship. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it ispseudography. In any event The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. At least it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a recent construct.

JoeT

More copies Joe would you provide us with your source

paraclete,
I think he will since you asked so nicely.
Fred

Joe your argument fails on the Testimony of Christ himself. Why did Jesus need to undergo baptism to fulfill all righteousness? The reason is that he was in fact born into the same situation we're born into and that makes him true man. So how about stop copying the pat answers and start to understand what Scripture is actually saying

You might recall, I can think outside the book. I'm not chained to a book alone.


The reason for Christ's baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, “I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it's here we see the reasons for John's indulgence. It's here and during Christ's passion do we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ eclipsed the renewal baptism that merely renovated Jew's soul, transforming Baptism to the rebirth of a new spirit of Christian soul. “Not until then, assuredly, were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It's in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man Baptism, “he has not salvation … For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life.

JoeT

more copies Joe would you provide us with your source

HERE! HERE!

I hope you enjoyed it.

more copies Joe would you provide us with your source


I am the source. Do I need to cite myself too? (JoeT777, p.9, AMHD, Today, 09:03 PM)

I am the source. Do I need to cite myself too? (JoeT777, p.9, AMHD, Today, 09:03 PM)


AHHHH You have finally made it clear to all.
You believe that YOU are the source, IE God!
Thanks for finally revealing your true source and spirit!

You might recall, I can think outside the book. I'm not chained to a book alone.


The reason for Christ's baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, “I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it's here we see the reasons for John's indulgence. It's here and during Christ's passion do we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ eclipsed the renewal baptism that merely renovated Jew's soul, transforming Baptism to the rebirth of a new spirit of Christian soul. “Not until then, assuredly, were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It's in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man Baptism, “he has not salvation … For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life.

JoeT

Where in the Law did it require him to be baptised? So he did not fulfill the Law by being Baptised. Christ instituted two "new" sacraments, Baptism and Communion. These things are outside the Law. They are part of the new covenant. Every time you get near RCC teaching you find it all twisted up, why is that? Traditions of man, I guess

Where in the Law did it require him to be baptized? So he did not fulfill the Law by being baptized. Christ instituted two "new" sacraments, Baptism and Communion. These things are outside the Law. They are part of the new covenant. Every time you get near RCC teaching you find it all twisted up, why is that? Traditions of man, I guess

Good question, very good question, GREAT question, and I've got an answer; surprise!

It's going to take some time to pull it all together, but baptism isn't a New Testament sacrament (I'm assuming you're equating Old Testament ecclesiastical ritual with New Testament sacraments – while we can say this in a general sense, not every ritual in Judaism has Divine roots but, we can say that all sacraments are Divinely ordained.) There are 'washing' rituals that would make baptism recognizable to the Jew. Notice that Nicodemus didn't ask what the water was for. “I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.” Why didn't Nicodemus say “what's the water for? I've got flesh; I've got spirit, why do I need water?” I believe there's a reason for this.

The sacrament of Holy Communion has to do with the Pascal Lamb and 12 loaves/knowledge, the Twelve, Moses, and manna from heaven. But, like I said this may take a few hours.

You're right, when you make your own traditions outside the Magisterium, especially concerning the Eucharist, things do tend to get mixed up.

JoeT

Good question, very good question, GREAT question, and I’ve got an answer; surprise!

It’s going to take some time to pull it all together, but baptism isn’t a New Testament sacrament (I’m assuming you’re equating Old Testament ecclesiastical ritual with New Testament sacraments – while we can say this in a general sense, not every ritual in Judaism has Divine roots but, we can say that all sacraments are Divinely ordained.) There are ‘washing’ rituals that would make baptism recognizable to the Jew. Notice that Nicodemus didn’t ask what the water was for. “I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.” Why didn’t Nicodemus say “what’s the water for? I’ve got flesh; I’ve got spirit, why do I need water?” I believe there’s a reason for this.

The sacrament of Holy Communion has to do with the Pascal Lamb and 12 loaves/knowledge, the Twelve, Moses, and manna from heaven. But, like I said this may take a few hours.

Your right, when you make your own traditions outside the Magisterium, especially concerning the Eucharist, things do tend to get mixed up.

JoeT

Joe you have to understand baptism was Jewish ritual symbolising change, but it was used for all sorts of purposes, In the New Covenant Jesus connected it with spiritual new birth "born again" something the Law could never do for you. Similarly, Communion whilst having rootes in the Passover and the pascal Lamb is something entirely new and an anathema to the Jew since we are eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood. The Jew could eat of a lamb but not human flesh. The Old Testament is a shadow of the New. We can see direct parralels and the old prophesies what is to come

JoeT,
Excellent.
I'm surprised though I should not be that someone would calim you are trying to be God.
That's and LOL if there ever was one.
Pax Christi,
Fred

Laugh all you want Fred, this is EXACTLY what Joet said;

"You might recall, I can think outside the book. I'm not chained to a book alone. "

Is that not what he is saying that by thinking outside the book (bible) he is placing himself above all others? At least in relation to this discussion. If Joe was indeed a Christian, then he is bound by the bible in all aspects of his life. Not some book written by man telling him what the bible ought to say instead of what it actually says.

The reason why Christ was baptized by John was to institute baptism as an entry to the Kingdom of God. The reason for The Twelve not to be baptized by Christ, but by John, was because they had already received a certain grace different from us. Being in the presence of Christ, you might say they were the Shewbread that feed His lambs. Ever wonder why Christ said this to Peter? It's my opinion that Peter and the others were to feed them knowledge of a hope. We need to be shown the need for hope and understand the promise of hope before we can have hope. [Cf. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23)] Not as the manna from heaven, but a different type of food, you might say our first grace, knowledge of Christ.

The reason for Christ’s baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, “I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it’s here we see the reasons for John’s indulgence. It’s here and during Christ’s passion where we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. It’s here that The Twelve ‘loaves of proposition” are exposed to the Holy of Hollies.

There is a hint in the word ‘fire’ in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7 or was it Isaiah 40:1-5, 9-11 relating to New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “. All of which leads us to the understanding that this was a pivotal point in Christ’s ministry where we see the- beginning-of- the-end of the Old Covenant and the beginning (or formation) of the New Covenant.

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) being described. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. “And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses” The bread was exposed to God, remaining there for about a week. Then in at the appropriate time, it was removed and used by the priests for substance.

Offering His self as the manna of life, Christ eclipsed the renewed baptism from merely renovating the Jew’s soul, transforming it to a Baptism of a rebirth in a new spirit as adopted sons of God. “Not until then, assuredly, ‘were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach’. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, “he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas says that the “role of The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e. "hope has no place in them." Conversely, given knowledge Christ gives us hope for a future vision of Christ.

I’m sure you’re aware, baptism wasn’t new, the Jews of Christ’s day would have immediately connected the waters of baptism to “Mikvah” (MIK-vuh) the Jewish cleansing ritual “ A Liturgical gathering at a ritual bath used for spiritual purification. It is used primarily in conversion rituals and after the sexual separation during a woman's menstrual cycles, but many Chasidim, a branch of Orthodox Judaism, immerse themselves in the mikvah regularly for general spiritual purification. See Mikvahand Mikveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is one other Jewish ritual that has both spiritual and hygienic purposes not to mention a unique marking of the male body. To the Jew in Abraham’s time, Moses’ time and the Jew in Christ’s time it’s a physical mark of a spiritual connection with God. Brit milah was an obligation both for the father and for the child. Not only was the child to be circumcised on the eighth day of the child's life, but failing to properly execute the ritual the father and child suffered a spiritual separation. The child would continue to suffer spiritual excision. It left both father and child (unable to enter the Kingdom of God to COME – one of the most server punishments in the Jewish culture, at least until as an adult the child could be circumcised. I’m told the ritual that accompanies the brit milah is a solemn occasion with prayers and blessings recited with the child receiving his Hebrew name. The Jew did not take circumcision lightly; it marked them spiritually and physically as a member of the Jewish community and a future member of the Kingdom of God. It joined their manhood to God. (Cf. If there is interest Judaism Judaism 101: Birth and the First Month of Life) Consequently, we can view baptism as another form of circumcision, a spiritual connection with Abraham, the Father of the Jews, with Moses, with David, with Christ, thereby becoming eligible to receive the Divinely promised salvation. The result isn’t a NEW religion, but rather an entrance, a door with a universall doormat, open to all, to the promised Kingdom of God to be presented by Christ to God.

To walk through the door of the Kingdom of God we are required to be baptized, there are no exceptions indicated in the verse – there is no “less and except” so to speak; there is no “figuratively” spoken clauses. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) This isn’t the door to the building down the street where they took the corpus off the cross; this is the door to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Kingdom of God. Acts chapter 2, verse 38 speaks clearly of the remission of sins; in Acts 22:16 Be baptized, and wash away thy sins: in Acts 5:25 sqq. Because "Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.“ Not a spot or wrinkle, not actual sin or original sin. In baptism all sin is washed away to be made holy: an infusion of supernatural graces that renders the recipient an adopted son of God. This doesn't require a bifurcation of man, body and soul may be divided for some short time, but will be eventually united in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Look into the very last chapter of Matthew. What's said there? This Chapter tells us of Christ’s last words before ascending to His Kingdom in Heaven. Christ warrants and commissions the Apostles with powers vested only in Him, “teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Focus the entire story of Christ on the moment of His baptism, the spirit descends, the heavens open…; you know it as well as I do. This singular point in time is where we see the focal point of the beatitudes, communion, confession, His sermon on the mount, His healing miracles, and His very last words to the Twelve Princes of His Kingdom on Earth. What does he say – “Ok I’m finished, have a nice day? It’s not really necessary but I want you to traipse around the county dunking people? “ HEAVEANS! NO! He said, “baptize them in the NAME of the “Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Wouldn’t you think baptism is a little more than a ‘good thing’ given what he told Nicodemus (Cf. John 3:3)?

I think there is HOPE in those words, more than self sacrifice. I'm not taking away anything from Christ's sacrifice when I say that I’ve seen Marines sacrifice themselves in that similar uncommon valor as hanging of a sinless man on a tree. I’ve heard tell of men who gave their lives for their family. While uncommon in the history, it is not all together unheard of. So why did He expose His Glory to these Twelve? Could it be for sacrificial bread of hope? But which loaf?

Exodus is 16:12 "I have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel; say to them, `At twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.'"

Examining Exodus 40 we see the Tabernacle (the residence of God on earth) was established for the first time. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked on a table in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 for a total of 12 loaves in the presence of God (Cf. Lev. 24:8). Each loaf “shall take also fine flour …two tenths [of an ephah] shall be in every loaf.” (Lev 24:5-6). An ‘ephah’ is approximately equal to a 10-gallon dry measure bushel. Each loaf was made with 2-gallons of sifted flour which of course excluded all the tars – the purest of breads. The bread was unleavened and oven backed; it’s my understanding that the baking occurred in special ovens. Then each loaf was sprinkled with pure frankincense. The loaves were placed on a “table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses” (Cf. Ex. 40:20,21). The 2 rows of bread were a “memorial of the oblation of the Lord.” (Cf. Lev 24:7). Each Sabbath the bread was removed and replenished with twelve new loaves. Aaron and his priests (only those spiritually clean – presumably through the spiritual purification Mikvah) eat the loaves which made them spiritually pure to teach the God’s Law, God’s Word. Likewise, the twelve Apostles were the loaves “in the presence of God,” exposed to the Logos. These men became the holiest of sacrifices in New Covenant; bread made of sieved wheat with the absence of tars, pure and spiritually purified as a teaching memorial of Christ’s perfect sacrifice.

If we hold that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament then each and everything he did should be related to the temple. So, we see the 12 Apostles “in the presence of God;” the holiest of sacrifices in the temple; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times, i.e. separation of wheat and tars, priests on the order of Aaron. Holding the bread Christ said “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread.” In Matthew is the appearance of the loaves first time (the Apostles) in the presence of God who unveils Himself; “who do you say that I am.” These loaves were to be consumed by the people every time they preached; they nourish the faithful with the knowledge of the real flesh and blood of Christ. At the end of their time on earth new freshly baked loaves replace them, the succession of their office

At or near the point in time where the New Covenant and the Old Convent join, is when we recognize for the first time the juncture of the Apostles/Loaves. I think most theologians would agree that that point where Heaven consummates Christ’s ministry occurs at John’s Baptism. Notice that I’m not saying that Christ is MADE divine, He’s already divine, but rather this is where, like David who consummates the new Temple, Christ initiates his Kingdom. In short this is the consummation of the Kingdom of God, the NEW TEMPLE in the New Covenant, i.e. the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.


JoeT

“The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven.” But the residence of God on earth is in Moses' Tabernacle. If God is present on earth then he domiciles in his Tabernacle and the contents of that Tabernacle must also be present. God promised Moses a Kingdom till the end of times, there is no scriptural reference to the nullification in so far as I know. Moses is told, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6), which is the Old Testament equivalent of Matt 16:18. The promise made to Moses is an integral part of the Old Testament. The Jewish Kingdom was both a spiritual and temporal Kingdom with a priestly hierarchy; the Jews were to be governed by their priests. It was these that Christ was addressing when he spoke of the hypocritical Pharisee, not the faithful. It was these that were leading the faithful astray suggesting that they wear their faith in the form of customs and rituals as opposed to internalizing their faith.

Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by St. John. But John stopped him, saying: I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Allow it now.” For so it becomes us to fulfil all justice. Then he allowed him. And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:13-17)

Christ didn't overturn this Kingdom by creating a new one; in fact He couldn't because His ministry was the fulfillment of that very same Old Covenant, indeed what is given is the Messianic Kingdom along with the prophecies for a new King. To overthrow this Kingdom would have been to overthrow Himself, a ludicrous idea – but nonetheless put forward by the Core, Dathan, and Abiron of our present day (a.k.a. Protestant). However what Christ was about to do was to turn over the 'Key' of the Kingdom to a new tenant, today's Catholic Church; the all inclusive (Jew and gentile) Kingdom we call the Roman Catholic Church. Which is the reason that in Matthew's gospel, we hear Christ say, “I say to you [Pharisees] that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.” This too was the pronouncement of Mt. Sinai. And too, like that provided for Moses, a special manna is provided. But, a rebirth; not renewed but birthed again – how asks Nicodemus, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again,” – a stupid question coming from a Jewish intellectual isn't it - certainly not with Moses' manna, if you recall “they ate manna, and are dead.” Christ gave us something much better, not only did he give us meat for the hunger of the soul but he gave us 'bread' to feed our faith, a bread of hope. The Twelve Apostles are those loaves of hope, and continually replenished as time requires; still manna for a vision of God. Does Nicodemus understand how a man can be're-born' now?

The connection of the Twelve Apostles/Loaves to the beginning of the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant hasn't been shown yet. Simply knowing that Christ is the Kingdom of God and knowing that The Twelve are the 'loaves of proposition' doesn't connect necessarily connect the two to the same point in time. Furthermore, there is still the issue of the baptism of the Twelve; scriptures aren't clear, a bit obscure, you might say foggy.


Bring to the Lord, O you children of God: bring to the Lord the offspring of rams. Bring to the Lord glory and honour: bring to the Lord glory to his name: adore the Lord in his holy court. The voice of the Lord is upon the waters; the God of majesty has thundered, The Lord is upon many waters. The voice of the Lord is in power; the voice of the Lord in magnificence. The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars: yea, the Lord shall break the cedars of Libanus. And shall reduce them to pieces, as a calf of Libanus, and as the beloved son of unicorns. The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire: The voice of the Lord shakes the desert: and the Lord shall shake the desert of Cades. 9 The voice of the Lord prepares the stags: and he will discover the thick woods: 10 The Lord makes the flood to dwell: and the Lord shall sit king for ever. 11 The Lord will give strength to his people: the Lord will bless his people with peace. (Psalms 29)

St. Augustine on Psalms 29: Sung by David at the completion of the tabernacle, it perfects the temple. The first and second verses tell of the strength of the God's mediator in the war against evil and sing his praises. (We'll just take his word for it - I suppose 'ram' is to give the sense of strength to the 'children of God', i.e. the faithful.) These aren't mere platitudes; remember the auspicious occasion where this is being sung. It could easily be described as a dedication ceremony. For David the dedication of the greatest Temple the Jewish nation had seen – it was completed it in perfection.

We see the completion of Christ's ministry much the same way. The auscultation of some Protestants when they hear Christ's last words 'it is finished,' is to hear the gurgle of 'no more can be done,' the work is done, shut the doors! Go home! You can't add more to perfection! The Kingdom of God ends on the Cross, faith and the Mystical Body of Christ starts and ends on this last breath. The sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication can roll up on a Cross and go home – cover-it-up, put-it-away, it's- too-hard-to-look-at type of faith.

I DON'T THINK SO!! Every English version of the bible except the Douay-Rheims Bible uses the word “finished” as Christ's last utterance hanging on a tree. Nevertheless yes, the Temple was finished in the sense that all the construction work had come to fruition, everything in its place, shined and spit-polished, ready for…ready for what? To FINISH, as in done or end? That doesn't make much sense does it? That's not a living faith now is it? That's a DEAD faith nailed to a tree some 2,000-years ago. The temple was “consummated,” as in finished to perfection and ready to perform its intended function; a faith consummated (brought to a state of perfection) ready to be LIVED – a rebirth in yet another nuance


JoeT

The auscultation of Protestants when they hear Christ’s last words ‘it is finished,’ is to hear the gurgle of ‘no more can be done,’ the work is done, shut the doors! Go home! You can’t add more to perfection! The Kingdom of God ends on the Cross, faith and the Mystical Body of Christ starts and ends on this last breath. The sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication can roll up on a Cross and go home – cover-it-up, put-it-away, it’s- too-hard-to-look-at type of faith.
This is NOT Protestant belief!

This is NOT Protestant belief!

Ok, let me see if I can fix it.

450donn,
No. I don't think so.
What he is saying that there is more to Christianity than the bible.
Example, the writings of the early Church Fathers are very important fior the were taught by the apostels.
In fact what those fathers have said often gives us a better understanding of what is in the bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

the writings of the early Church Fathers are very important fior the were taught by the apostels.
When the early church fathers got around to writing anything, the apostles were long gone.

450donn,
No. I don't think so.
What he is saying that there is more to Christianity than the bible.
Example, the writings of the early Church Fathers are very important fior the were taught by the apostels.
In fact what those fathers have said often gives us a better understanding of what is in the bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred


So again what you are alluding to is that the Bible is incomplete and you have to rely on the writings of someone that is associated with your religion to find out what to believe? Sure your not a Mormon? Come on Fred, do you believe the bible is the complete word of God or not? Why do you insist that you have to rely on the writings of someone with no credentials, no direct contact with my Lord and God? Heck if that were true I should write a book of Donn and sell it . Maybe I can even start my own religion.

450donn,
Of course the bible is incomplete.
It came to and end didn't it?
Or do you think that God stopped being God and inspiring people almost 2000 years ago?
I think not.
The knowledge passed down from the early apostles IS important. Some of the earliest writer WERE taught by some of Jesus apostles so history AND the writings DO show.
That is another reason why Jesus established His Church.
To preserve, as it has, those ancient writings and to protect the bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Maybe I can even start my own religion.

Would that make you a donnist or the Don?

Arcura


Those passages about Jesus flesh IS food indeed and blood IS drink indeed are to be take literally.
They are the Eucharist and the path to eternal like for as Jesus said about those who partake of it, "I will raise them up on the last day".
It does not mean that others who do not partake can not go to heaven there are other means.

Sorry but Joe is not right just because you say so. By the way Joe says that partaking in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life. But you say there are other means. You contradict him. Which of you are right?

“

We see the completion of Christ’s ministry much the same way. The auscultation of some Protestants when they hear Christ’s last words ‘it is finished,’ is to hear the gurgle of ‘no more can be done,’ the work is done, shut the doors! Go home! You can’t add more to perfection! The Kingdom of God ends on the Cross, faith and the Mystical Body of Christ starts and ends on this last breath. The sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication can roll up on a Cross and go home – cover-it-up, put-it-away, it’s- too-hard-to-look-at type of faith.


JoeT

I think the great problem, Joe, is that the RCC thinks Christ needs help and so they have given him a co-redemptrix, a concept completely unsupported by Scripture. It was a finished work at Calvary and it still is. No further work of redemption needs to be done. However there is something left for us to do, appropriate the work of Christ, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling, a concept which seems lost today.

JoeT777


Why sure it’s literal, unembroidered. I can see how you can take verses John 6:26-48 (51) metaphorically, but then you’re left with verses John 6:52-72 which are emphatically literal; even Protestant writers such as

No it is not. Moreover He was not talking about the Eucharist there at all. That is what the RC would want everybody to believe. They insist and you insist on this because only then does the non-scriptural RC doctrine of the transubstantiation stand. Sorry but Christs' very act of dividing of the bread and wind to His disciples was symbolic


This was foretold in Isaiah, “feed your enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save you, and your Redeemer the Mighty One (Isaiah 49:26). If Christ didn’t feed them flesh, then he wasn’t the “Mighty One” now was he?.

This does not make any sense. You are extracting non-existent meaning from the verse.


If you reject Mary you reject Christ, if you reject His Church you reject Mary.

No that is non-scriptural. That is just one of the technique the RC uses to force you to accept Mary as someone she is not.


To say that Mary was born with original sin and actual sin means that she was a slave to sin as are all of us born of man.

First of all "That all of us are born with an original sin" is in itself a non-scriptural hoax. And yes Mary was a slave to sin as all of us are. For the scripture says that only Christ is without sin no one else is.


The ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ would have been born out of a slave to the devil and resided in filth; thus such a person does not meet prophetically and divine requirement for perfection - not my requirement, but God's requirement to send the PERFECT Lamb and the Messiah.

I have already explained about this guess you did not read it properly.

Joe
If I would have come to the church that you personally attend, I would really ask if Jesus is the owner of that ''house'', simply because the spirit that you manifest here among us has nothing in common with the spirit of Christ. Do you honestly believe that your spirit is Christ's spirit? I say that there is nothing in the way you express yourself that can even remind me my Lord. You are far from being a Christian and do not fool yourself that you are simply because you attend a gathering of people who name themselves a church. A Christian is one who has a living relationship with the Christ and when someone does so it is obvious. In your case I see you have a very close relationship with fanaticism. I don't see Life coming out of you, I don't see Light coming out of you, I don't see Christ coming out of you. I can see a lot of Joe coming out of you but as Christians we are supposed to die so that Christ may live through us.
You are in need of the basic things of the gospel of our Lord and you have to do something about it. Build your relationship with the Lord instead of building your relationship with what you think is the church.
May the Lord Jesus the Christ support you and stand by you, so that you may willingly crucify yourself in order for Him to live inside you forever, Amen!

I think the great problem, Joe, is that the RCC thinks Christ needs help and so they have given him a co-redemptrix, a concept completely unsupported by Scripture. It was a finished work at Calvary and it still is. No further work of redemption needs to be done. However there is something left for us to do, appropriate the work of Christ, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling, a concept which seems lost today.

Just to point out a few things, let me start with the small fact that it was Mary’s Child that was hung on the cross at Calvary, no other mother suffered so much as the loss of so perfect a son. Her presence at the foot of the Cross (Jn.19:26) testifies to her ‘share’ in the suffering of Christ on your behalf.

Another important fact is that ‘co’ in the title “Coredemptrix” attests to to her suffering; not that she was “equal to,” but rather “with” Christ coming from the Latin “cum”. Mary is subordinate to Christ’s redemption. Without her blessed humility our instrument of salvation would not have been possible.

If ever this Marian dogma is defined by the Church and becomes a doctrine all of us can applaud the recognition of Mary’s unique role in opening of the possibility for salvation through Christ.

We pray: HAIL HOLY QUEEN, mother of mercy; our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. We long to hear you salutation, blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. (Cf. Luke 1:43)

JoeT

inhisservice,
Surprise!!
We are both right.
Having a working faith that perceivers saves.
And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.
It is? Where in the Bible does it say that?

inhisservice,

And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.

Fred

That is certainly not Catholic doctrine, Arcura.

And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.

Fred

Fred I would very much like to see your Scriptural basis for this pronouncement

All...
Please read the gospel of John.
It's in there Read all of Chapter six for it is extremely important regarding the Eucharist but...
The verse you folks want is this John 6:55  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just to point out a few things, let me start with the small fact that it was Mary's Child that was hung on the cross at Calvary, no other mother suffered so much as the loss of so perfect a son. Her presence at the foot of the Cross (Jn.19:26) testifies to her 'share' in the suffering of Christ on your behalf.

Joe how dare you down grade Jesus to Mary's child, making him of no more significance than his mother. Mary did not walk Palistine, Mary did not heal the sick, drive out demons and raise the dead, Mary did not suffer the passion and Mary was not crucified and died. Mary did not rise from the dead. Mary is in every way inferior to Jesus, and I HAVE NO DOUBT WOULD TELL YOU SO HERSELF


Another important fact is that 'co' in the title “Coredemptrix” attests to to her suffering; not that she was “equal to,” but rather “with” Christ coming from the Latin “”. Mary is subordinate to Christ's redemption. Without her blessed humility our instrument of salvation would not have been possible.

You have not denied that the RCC calls Mary the co-redemptrix, no matter how you twist it it is an attempt to elevate her to equal status and the position of part of the godhead. Your un-holy trinity is the Father, Jesus and Mary, something totally unscriptural


If ever this Marian dogma is defined by the Church and becomes a doctrine all of us can applaud the recognition of Mary's unique role in opening of the possibility for salvation through Christ.

What absolute rubbish, only God himself could open the possibility of salvation through Christ. Get out of your head and into Scripture


We pray: HAIL HOLY QUEEN, mother of mercy; our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. We long to hear you salutation, blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. (Cf. Luke 1:43)

JoeT

What this has to do with Luke 1:43 is beyond me. How twisted is your intrepretation? That is straight out idolatory

Are you sick of something?
Joe IS right again.
Jesus IS Mary's child or don't you believe the bible.
She gave birth to Him, God the Son, Jesus Christ.
THEREFORE Jesus IS Mary's child.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Are you sick of something?
Joe IS right again.
Jesus IS Mary's child or don't you believe the bible.
She gave birth to Him, God the Son, Jesus Christ.
THEREFORE Jesus IS Mary's child.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Get a life, Fred, Jesus stands alone as the redeemer even God the Father says in the Bible, I am your salvation, Mary is little more than a bystander and any suggestion she is more than that is pure fantasy

Joe how dare you down grade Jesus to Mary's child, making him of no more significance than his mother. Mary did not walk Palistine, Mary did not heal the sick, drive out demons and raise the dead, Mary did not suffer the passion and Mary was not crucified and died. Mary did not rise from the dead. Mary is in every way inferior to Jesus, and I HAVE NO DOUBT WOULD TELL YOU SO HERSELF

If Christ wasn't the human being Jesus, then Scripture is not truthful? If Chrsit wasn't the being Jesus, then who was He? We hold that Christ was man and we hold the Christ is God. As man, then he had a mother; would the perfect man have had an 'imperfect' mother? How do you know that Mary didn't walk Palestine with Christ? And though she didn't heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, and then could Christ the man have done it without a Mother?


You have not denied that the RCC calls Mary the co-redemptrix, no matter how you twist it it is an attempt to elevate her to equal status and the position of part of the godhead. Your un-holy trinity is the Father, Jesus and Mary, something totally unscriptural

But, I'm forced to deny it, because there is no doctrine (yet) that requires us to give title of 'with-the Redeemer' to Mary; it wouldn't be elevating her anyway. She already holds the title in perpetuity.


What absolute rubbish, only God himself could open the possibility of salvation through Christ. Get out of your head and into Scripture
So now you pretend to say how God holds out salvation for mankind? What way would be required of God? Would your god only 'save' like minded book readers? Would your god only 'save' those who find it contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to any authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.


What this has to do with Luke 1:43 is beyond me. How twisted is your interpretation? That is straight out idolatry
Yes, I can see. It is way beyond you.

JoeT

would the perfect man have had an 'imperfect' mother?
Yes, He did. The Bible never says Mary was sinless.

How do you know that Mary didn't walk Palestine with Christ?
If she did, why doesn't the NT mention it? Other women are mentioned as being Jesus' followers. Mary is mentioned in the Cana story... and as one who stood at the foot of the cross.

And though she didn't heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, and then could Christ the man have done it without a Mother?
Did He need her to hold His hand? Of course, He could have done it without her, and as far as we know, He did!

there is no doctrine (yet) that requires us to give title of 'with-the Redeemer' to Mary... She already holds the title in perpetuity.
No, she doesn't. Why would she?

Yes, He did. The Bible never says Mary was sinless.
And how many others are called “full of Grace” in New Testament Scripture and what is his name? Does being ‘full of Grace” mean anything? Is a Divine proclamation, ‘full of Grace,’ to be shucked off like so much bad breath.


If she did, why doesn't the NT mention it? Other women are mentioned as being Jesus' followers. Mary is mentioned in the Cana story... and as one who stood at the foot of the cross.
And where in the New Testament does it say Mary didn’t.


Did He need her to hold His hand? Of course, He could have done it without her, and as far as we know, He did!

No he didn’t need her to hold His Hand? But, he did need a clean temple to reside in for 9 months; and He did need her to give birth. He did need her to raise the Christ Child.


No, she doesn't. Why would she?

She carries whatever title heaven chooses to give her.

JoeT

And how many others are called “full of Grace”
That doesn't mean she was sinless.

And where in the New Testament does it say Mary didn't.
The obligation is to show she did follow Jesus around and do miracles with Him.

But, he did need a clean temple to reside in for 9 months
Why? God isn't powerful enough to do it only for Jesus?

If that's true, so then would have Mary, in order to be sinless. That problem was solved by the RCC, but what about her mother Anne? And her mother? And her mother? Each one would have had to be sinless in order to produce a perfect daughter whose descendant Mary would have produced Jesus.

It's not Mary's action in being sinless that produced Jesus. It was God's action.

He did need her to give birth. He did need her to raise the Christ Child.
No argument there, but those activities don't make her sinless.

She carries whatever title heaven chooses to give her.
The adjectives ascribed to her in the Gospels do not make her sinless.

And how many others are called “full of Grace” in New Testament Scripture and what is his name? Does being 'full of Grace” mean anything? Is a Divine proclamation, 'full of Grace,' to be shucked off like so much bad breath.

Joe has it occurred to you that the Holy Ghost infills humans today. How is this different? All it takes is righteousness


And where in the New Testament does it say Mary didn't.

So, if the Scripture is silent, this is the excuse to invent all manner of fancifull tales, because as you say the Scripture doesn't say it is not so. If that isn't the wisdom of the devil, I don't know what is. Remember in the garden he said God didn't say that



No he didn't need her to hold His Hand? But, he did need a clean temple to reside in for 9 months; and He did need her to give birth. He did need her to raise the Christ Child.

Joe no one denies the very real contribution Mary made to the early life of Jesus, however at one point she and his siblings considered him mad, which is an indication of the level of discernment, but ultimately Jesus had to make the decision to go to the cross, we know that was an agonising decision for him, and I don't see Mary being any part of that decision.


She carries whatever title heaven chooses to give her.



Yes and apparently any title man chooses to give her. But no doubt heaven will enlighten us in this regard since the RCC has failed to do so

paraclete,
Thanks but I have a life, the one that I selected for me and it is the best I EVER had.
I chose to be a Catholic after much study and effort to understand it.
It is obvious to me that you do not understand it or even want to.
It is obvious that Jesus could not have been born perfect without being born from a perfect sinless mother.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Jesus was perfect in all things including being a son.
He Honored his mother perfectly so she had to be perfect.
Why is that so hard to understand/
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It is obvious that Jesus could not have been born perfect without being born from a perfect sinless mother.
So you are saying God isn't powerful enough to create a sinless child inside a sinful human mother, that God had to make Mary sinless too? If that's true, why wasn't Mary's mother sinless?

He Honored his mother perfectly so she had to be perfect.
My two sons have never disappointed me, have always honored me, but that hasn't made me perfect, nor did I have to be perfect in order to receive that honor from them.

paraclete,
Thanks but I have a life, the one that I selected for me and it is the best I EVER had.
I chose to be a Catholic after much study and effort to understand it.
It is obvious to me that you do not understand it or even want to.
It is obvious that Jesus could not have been born perfect without being born from a perfect sinless mother.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Jesus was perfect in all things including being a son.
He Honored his mother perfectly so she had to be perfect.
Why is that so hard to understand/
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you keep repeating the same hackneyed dogma. I understand Catholicism well enough I was raised a Catholic and educated in Catholic schools. What is obvious to me is that the righteouness and sinless nature of Jesus came from his Father and not from his mother.

Jesus righteousness came from BOTH God and His Mother.
So I believe.
I am fully satified with my choice to become a Catholic after many years as a Protestant.
I have nothing against the protestants beliefs though there are a FEW such that I disagree with.
Those few are why I chose go to the road to Rome.
The Protestants brought me to the Love of the Triune God.
For that I am eternally grateful.
I am not surprised that you disagree with my beliefs for there were many years I did that same about Catholic beliefs
In fact I expect it.
Both Joe and I are trying to help you understand why we believe as we do.
I already understand why you who are protestants believe as you do although there are a few denominations' beliefs of such that I do not FULLY understand such as the rapture though I have tried to do so.
I still stick by my believe that anyone who really, fully does understand the Catholic Church's official beliefs will never leave it. I know that I will not.
So I must agree to disagree with some of the statements made here.
To close this post I must say that God chose and prepared Mary to be His son, the Messiah, the way He did because of His perfect wisdom and understanding.
God wanted His son's mother to be perfect to give birth to a perfect son. So I believe that the bible indicates.
Mary was and IS the most blessed woman to ever have lived.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

http://mvny.org/images/closed.gif