Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

And the reasons you've listed are hardly proof. You only stated that no transubstantiation occurred, and listed two old testament verses, one which has nothing to do with what you claimed it said. These logical leaps you're taking can't be considered evidence to refute such a longstanding principle.

I can just as easily claim that a figurative interpretation isn't scriptural.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm is the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for the Real Presence, and the first paragraph also has some points about the language and word choices used, if you want another source.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

And the reasons you've listed are hardly proof. You only stated that no transubstantiation occurred, and listed two old testament verses, one which has nothing to do with what you claimed it said. These logical leaps you're taking can't be considered evidence to refute such a longstanding principle.

I can just as easily claim that a figurative interpretation isn't scriptural.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm is the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for the Real Presence, and the first paragraph also has some points about the language and word choices used, if you want another source.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

What I said was...


"Jesus still had his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for sins the next afternoon (of the same day of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan 14). He also retained all his blood for that perfect sacrifice. “He poured out his soul [which is in the blood] to the very death.” (Isa 53:12; Le 17:11) Consequently, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, as is claimed by those who adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation.

This is not contradicted by Jesus’ words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord’s Evening Meal; such an arrangement was not instituted until a year later. The ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ mentioned in this account are done in a figurative sense by exercising faith in Jesus Christ, as is indicated by verses 35 and 40.

Furthermore, eating actual human flesh and blood would be cannibalism. Therefore, Jews who were not exercising faith and who did not properly understand Jesus’ statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were shocked. This indicated the Jewish view on eating human flesh and blood, as inculcated by the Law.—John 6:60.

Additionally, drinking blood was a violation of God’s law to Noah, prior to the Law covenant. (Ge 9:4; Le 17:10) The Lord Jesus Christ would never instruct others to violate God’s law. (Compare Mt 5:19.) Furthermore, Jesus commanded: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me,” not in sacrifice of me.—1Co 11:23-25.

The bread and the wine are, therefore, emblems, representing Christ’s flesh and blood in a symbolic way, just as were his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus had said to those offended by his words: “For a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (Joh 6:51) This was given at his death as a sacrifice. His body was buried and was disposed of by his Father before it could see corruption. (Ac 2:31) No one ever ate any of his flesh or blood, literally."

I then went on to show how Acts 15 correlates to and clarifies the genesis account which contains the long standing principle to abstain from Blood. Since devonin questioned it.

I don't see you brush that off as "hardly proof".

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Tying this all back into transubstantiation, clearly, interpreting John 6:51-57 as one literally eating and drinking the blood and flesh of Jesus, is Biblically unfounded.

Well, thank goodness we don't still do exactly and only what it says in the bible. I'd really hate to have to stone my housemate Meghan to death for wearing pants, and speaking before spoken to.

Also, as a question: You say that given jesus presenting himself as a whole, perfect and unblemished sacrifice means he could not possibly have actually given his flesh and blood to his apostles, how is this -not- you assuming that he's slicing off some thigh, and letting blood drip into a cup?

I'm pretty sure that if you give me an orange, and tell me to give it back tomorrow unblemished and perfect, and I -through miracle- turn an apple into an orange, I can still eat oranges at dinner, without blemishing the one you gave me.

You refer to Blood as Soul, and Souls are infinite. Split infinity into half and you still have infinty and infinity. Turning the wine to blood doesn't mean he has less blood, it doesn't mean he's wrecked his own blood sacrifice.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Well, thank goodness we don't still do exactly and only what it says in the bible. I'd really hate to have to stone my housemate Meghan to death for wearing pants, and speaking before spoken to.

So you acknowledge that this Doctrine clearly violates the Biblical principle, to abstain from Blood.

As for any stoning or other practice of the Old Testament, I refer you to the New Testament which commands to love your neighbor as yourself. The New Covenant Jesus creates replaces the mosaic law. It wouldn't be very loving to stone your house mate Meghan for wearing pants, and is therefore not required.

Since we have established that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation violates a Biblical principle and is therefore erroneous , is there any need to continue?

The Bible never contradicts itself (I have never come across a so-called contradiction I couldn't find an answer to) therefore, any custom or tradition that claims to be based off of the holy scriptures should adhere to it completely.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

So...Any tradition that claims to be based off the holy scriptures should adhere to it completely and yet in your same post you point out how one part of the bible says to stone women who wear pants, and another part says not to...but there are no contradictions at all...

I'm curious how to adhere to both of these things at the same time. Stone her but feel really bad?

And further, if "new parts" have somehow "paved over" and "replaced" old parts, that implies that the old parts were in no way divinely inspired, because they have been shown to be faulty, so why are we consulting it in the first place?

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

So...Any tradition that claims to be based off the holy scriptures should adhere to it completely and yet in your same post you point out how one part of the bible says to stone women who wear pants, and another part says not to...but there are no contradictions at all...

I'm curious how to adhere to both of these things at the same time. Stone her but feel really bad?

And further, if "new parts" have somehow "paved over" and "replaced" old parts, that implies that the old parts were in no way divinely inspired, because they have been shown to be faulty, so why are we consulting it in the first place?

When Israel was organized as a nation, God became their King, Legislator, and Judge. (Isa 33:22) He gave them the “Ten Words,” or “Ten Commandments,” as they are often called, setting forth the principles upon which the body of about 600 other laws was based. He began the “Ten Words” with the statement: “I am [YHWH] your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (Ex 20:2) This serves as the primary reason for obedience to the entire Law. Disobedience was not only a violation of the law of the Head of government but also an offense against the Head of religion, their God, and blasphemy of God was lčse-majesté, treason.

Under the Law, the same principles applied as had governed patriarchal society. The Law, however, was more detailed and covered the whole scope of man’s activities. The entire Law, which is set forth in the Pentateuch, was of such a high standard of morality that no man could attempt to follow the complete Law without finding that he was convicted by it as being a sinner, imperfect. “The commandment is holy and righteous and good,” and “the Law is spiritual,” says the apostle Paul. “It was added to make transgressions manifest.” (Ro 7:12, 14; Ga 3:19) It was the whole law of God for Israel, laying down the principles and official decisions of God, not just a mere gathering of a set of cases that might arise or that had already arisen.

The sanctions under the Law, therefore, would help to show sin to be “far more sinful.” (Ro 7:13) The law of talion, requiring like for like, set out a standard of exact justice. The Law served for the peace and tranquility of the nation, preserved the nation when Israel obeyed it, and protected the individual against the wrongdoer, compensating him when his property was stolen or destroyed.
The Ten Commandments transcended man-made laws in that it made every man his own spiritual policeman and got at the root, or source, of the violation of all the commandments. If wrong desire was indulged, it would eventually manifest itself in a violation of one of the other nine commandments.

However, Jeremiah 31:31-34 Relates how God's former chosen people neglected to adhere to the covenant he provided for them and how a new covenant would be required.

The Law covenant mediated by means of the prophet Moses was good in itself. However, that covenant provided for the sacrifice of animals whose blood could never wash away human sins. So for God to set up a better covenant, there would have to be a better mediator with a better sacrifice. This all-necessary Mediator proved to be Jesus Christ. Pointing out the superiority of this Mediator as compared to the prophet Moses, the Bible gives us the following explanation: “But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises. . . . In his saying ‘a new covenant’ he has made the former one obsolete
Hebrews 8:6, 13.

The Mosaic Law was made for that people, time period, and circumstance. Fulfilling its purpose once the new covenant was created.

[MrZombie]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

<3 god.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

And further, if "new parts" have somehow "paved over" and "replaced" old parts, that implies that the old parts were in no way divinely inspired, because they have been shown to be faulty, so why are we consulting it in the first place?

Then what is "divinely inspired"? I thought the Bible was something that, you know, was infallible...all of it.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

Yes ted, that was the joke.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

Then what is "divinely inspired"? I thought the Bible was something that, you know, was infallible...all of it.

Yes, it is divinely inspired and it is all completely infallible. Interpretations come and go, but the text has and continues to remain unchanged and always accurate.

As I've stated, there are no contradictions within the Bible that cannot be explained. In addition, everything its prophesied has come true.

ex. Dead Sea Scrolls, etc

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

Yes, it is divinely inspired and it is all completely infallible.

Can you prove it without begging the question this time?

but the text has and continues to remain unchanged and always accurate.

Can you seriously say that with a straight face? "Interpretations" have "come and gone" so often, that I am almost 100% certain that nobody living could possibly have seen "An original bible" let alone one that was written in the original language.

As I've stated, there are no contradictions within the Bible that cannot be explained.

Which implies that there -are- contradictions? Perhaps you could illuminate some of the contradictions for which you have explanations? I'm genuinely curious.

In addition, everything its prophesied has come true.

Inductive logic is not an especially good tack to take here.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

I love how you just skip over my explanation of why the new testament doesn't contradict the old and harp on this.

Anyway, I would direct you to the Dead Sea Scrolls for an example of Biblical books that have remained the same for the past 2200 years. With slight alterations in the grammar and punctuation that do not alter the general interpretation of the text.

In regards to prophesy, look up Jeremiah 51:27.

The book Archaeology and Old Testament Study states: “These extensive ruins, of which, despite Koldewey’s work, only a small proportion has been excavated, have during past centuries been extensively plundered for building materials. Partly in consequence of this, much of the surface now presents an appearance of such chaotic disorder that it is strongly evocative of the prophecies of Isa. xiii. 19–22 and Jer. l. 39 f., the impression of desolation being further heightened by the aridity which marks a large part of the area of the ruins.”—Edited by D. W. Thomas, Oxford, 1967, p. 41

I vaguely recall Good ol' Sodom mentioning he was going to restore Babylon to its former glory (Since its located in modern day Iraq). We all know how that turned out.

And, there are plenty of so-called contradictions that people claim exist, such as the one you brought up. They are all logically explained using nothing more than the Bible.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

I love how you just skip over my explanation of why the new testament doesn't contradict the old and harp on this.

Or I bought your explanation and was moving on instead of giving you the pat on the back you seem to crave so badly.

Anyway, I would direct you to the Dead Sea Scrolls for an example of Biblical books that have remained the same for the past 2200 years. With slight alterations in the grammar and punctuation that do not alter the general interpretation of the text.

Which book of the bible is the Dead Sea Scrolls?

In regards to prophesy, look up Jeremiah 51:27.

The book Archaeology and Old Testament Study states: “These extensive ruins, of which, despite Koldewey’s work, only a small proportion has been excavated, have during past centuries been extensively plundered for building materials. Partly in consequence of this, much of the surface now presents an appearance of such chaotic disorder that it is strongly evocative of the prophecies of Isa. xiii. 19–22 and Jer. l. 39 f., the impression of desolation being further heightened by the aridity which marks a large part of the area of the ruins.”—Edited by D. W. Thomas, Oxford, 1967, p. 41

So uh...Call her together against the kingdoms of (Present-day) Turkey, (Present-day) Iran and (Present-day) Germany. And the extensive ruins in Iraq are proof of this prophecy coming true? I find that a little problematic.

Also...the website you got that quote from says that the chaos and destuction exihibited in the ruins helps prove that the biblical account in Isaiah to be prophetic that "Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." And yet in the same article points out that Cyrus of Persia actually took over the city virtually without a fight, taking them by surprise and siezing the city intact.

Babylon then proceeded to flourish under Cyrus, then Darius the I, II and III, before being conquered by Alexander the Great in 331 BCE. It wasn't until 323 BCE (216 full years -after- the "prophecied conquering and destruction of Babylon") that things started to degenerate in the power struggle left in the wake of Alexander the Great's death.

Though I guess, technically the prophecy came true in the end, Jerimiah might have done bible apologists a favour by saying "Babylon will be taken over, flourish and suceed well for hundreds of years, through the reign of several empires over the area before eventually, 200+ years after the fact, a power struggle that had nothing to do with the people or places I was talking about will see its ruin"

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

As I recall, it contains sections from every book except Esther and the scroll of Isaiah is nearly perfectly intact. All of which have no significant changes from modern day Bibles. With the exception of slight grammatical and punctual differences which as I said before, don't alter meaning of the text. Wikipedia it

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

Yes ted, that was the joke.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was off.