Where does Scripture teach salvation comes through submission to the RC pope as claimed in the Unam Sanctum bull of pope Boniface VIII...

[LifeIn]

Sorry, but that is from a Catholic bible.

So is Luke's account, which you ignored. Luke's account has the consecration speech after the "I will not drink this fruit of the vine" speech. So your objection does not work if you believe Luke's account. And which bible this is from is not the issue because the word order is the same in both Catholic and Protestant bibles. The difference between Luke and Matthew is right there in the Greek too.

You are going to try and shoehorn the late arriving false doctrine of "appearances and accidents" into the Gospel accounts.

Speaking of appearances is not that unusual that I would need to "shoehorn" it in. It is quite common. In this case it also makes sense.

Christ did not say anything about the appearance.

He didn't have to say explicitly that he was speaking of appearances. It was understood by the disciples, just as we all understand what the weatherman means when he gives the times when the sun will rise and set. We know he is only talking about appearances and not that the sun moves up and down over the earth. You have chosen a particular way to interpret Scripture so as to deliberately arrange things to suit your beliefs, rather than forming your beliefs around a more objective interpretation of the Scriptures.

He described the contents of the cup. You do not drink an "appearance."

The contents of the cup did have all the appearance of wine.

That is not a contradiction. Both can be true when one uses figurative language....which Christ said He was using even while He was at the table.

No, the passage that was quoted where Jesus said he was speaking in figurative language was way before even Palm Sunday and the entry into Jerusalem. It was certainly before they were at table at the Last Supper.

 

[Atemi]

Jhn 16:25 “I have spoken of these matters in figures of speech, but soon I will stop speaking figuratively and will tell you plainly all about the Father."

This verse is well before the Last Supper.

You just made that up. Why do Catholic apologists keep doing that?

Judas already left in chapter 13. Judas left AFTER the Last Supper.

Verse 25 in no way refers to Jesus' words of consecration.

You just made that up.

Christ...at the table....says outright that He has been speaking figuratively...and you don't believe Him.

Here is what our Lord said in Latin: Mat 23:10 "nec vocemini magistri quia magister vester unus est Christus"

That there is a similar root word does not mean Matthew 23:10 is referring to the Catholic magisterium.

Our Lord did not make an exception for ANYONE to be called any of those terms in His kingdom!

LOL.

The very thing Christ prohibited is the very thing your Masters chose to be identified as....and you want us to believe this somehow does not apply to them!

Our Lord explicitly forbade any of His people being called a master....magister.

In Matthew 23:10 Jesus is telling his disciples not to be hypocrites like the scribes and Pharisees of his day, but to practice humility in service to each other, as you can see from the verses that follow verse 10.

And not to use very particular terminology in reference to themselves or others in the Kingdom of God.

Ya know, those Divine commands you and your sect leaders reject.

You have an interesting way of trying to justify disobedience to the explicit command of Christ.

I see you could not address how God commanded a child sacrifice of Abraham. In case you missed the point, it was that God can command an exception to a general rule (not to drink blood, or not to sacrifice your child).

There are no exceptions.

That is the point.

No one in the Kingdom of God can slaughter their children. No one in the Kingdom is to drink blood. No one in the Kingdom is to be called a master or "Father."

Christ said "no one"....but you tell us He really really made exceptions.

Let us guess who told you that: your Masters and Fathers.

I have heard Catholic women tell me that it was God's will that they get an abortion.

There is no accounting for disobedient self-proclaimed Christians.

Nope. They said they could be an "exception" (special dispensation) and that you should not judge God like that. Almost word for word.

Sound familiar?

 

[Atemi]

However my point still stands, which is when God speaks, Man cannot judge God

You did.

God spoke and said call NO ONE in His Kingdom master or father....but you judge Him and tell us He did not mean it or that He made a special exception for your sect leaders.

Our Lord did not even make an exception for the Apostles themselves, and your sect leaders want us to believe they are a special case?? Who could be so stupid as to fall for that?

Just as God's instructions to Abraham seems contrary to God's own law

God did not instruct your false teachers to be called master and father. God did not instruct you to call them that either.

What God DID instruct is that He explicitly said call NO ONE in His Kingdom master or father.

You do not take Him literally. You boast that you do, but then quickly admit you do not.

Similarly, when Christ says "this is my blood - take and drink", we cannot judge Christ and say "Christ would never tell us to break the prohibition on drinking blood - how disgusting!"

Acts 15:20 "abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood."

We take God at His word

No you don't. This entire thread Catholics have been insisting that they will NOT take God at His Word.

He says His disciples are not to be called master or father...and you refuse to take God at His Word.
He says His disciples are not to consume blood...and you refuse to take God at His Word.

At every turn, Catholics justify and boast in their rebellion.

 

[Atemi]

Sorry, but that is from a Catholic bible.

So is Luke's account, which you ignored. Luke's account has the consecration speech after the "I will not drink this fruit of the vine" speech.

If ANY account has it after the consecration...you have no argument.

Sorry.

Of course, if we add to that the fact that the Holy Spirit repeatedly teaches us that the consecrated Eucharist is bread as well...you have no argument.

You do not take God literally.

You are going to try and shoehorn the late arriving false doctrine of "appearances and accidents" into the Gospel accounts.

Speaking of appearances is not that unusual that I would need to "shoehorn" it in.

You do not drink "appearances."

He says it is wine...and you want us to believe He actually meant it was not wine but only LOOKED LIKE wine even though He said it is wine...

Yup...you don't take Christ literally.

Christ did not say anything about the appearance.

It was understood by the disciples

You totally made that up.

You seem to love to make this all up as you go.

You ignore what Christ DID say in order to speculate about what the disciples actually understood Him to say....which you invent off the top of your head.

Zero integrity on that one.

You have chosen a particular way to interpret Scripture so as to deliberately arrange things to suit your beliefs

Says the Catholic who, post after post, must ignore what God says over and over again just so you can arrange things to suit your beliefs.

That is not a contradiction. Both can be true when one uses figurative language....which Christ said He was using even while He was at the table.

No, the passage that was quoted where Jesus said he was speaking in figurative language was way before even Palm Sunday and the entry into Jerusalem.

No. It was at the table itself.

Stop making up stuff. You won't even bother to read the texts you are commenting on! You admit you are not even familiar with them.

It was certainly before they were at table at the Last Supper.

When Catholic apologists say "certainly," it is often a red flag that they are making something up entirely.

How is it that Judas "certainly" left at night to betray Christ (John 13:30) BEFORE Palm Sunday?

Zero integrity.

 

[Buzzard]

/
Buzzard said:
//LifeIn said:
You must admit that child sacrifice is devilish, right? Stop and think about that for a minute to make sure you agree. OK? Done considering that? Now tell me how you judge God who commanded a child sacrifice when He told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac? If Abraham were thinking like you, he might have thought "That couldn't God telling me to do that because it is devilish! No way am I going through with this!".

===================
well one thing is for sure;
someone is missing the point

Abraham the Father of the Children of Israel
there is far more than meets the eye here in this story
.
Gen. 22:15
And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham
out of heaven the second time,

16 And said,
By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,
for because thou hast done this thing,
and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
...
And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham,
saying,

Hey Abraham;
I have soon good news for you
Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor;
Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram,
And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel.

And Bethuel begat Rebekah:
.
Posters do you think for one moment,
Abraham did not know whou
"his most trusted Servant":
would be bringing home.
Predestiation
.
//LifeIn said:
You must admit that child sacrifice is devilish, right? Stop and think about that for a minute to make sure you agree. OK? Done considering that? Now tell me how you judge God who commanded a child sacrifice when He told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac? If Abraham were thinking like you, he might have thought "That couldn't God telling me to do that because it is devilish! No way am I going through with this!".
===========================================end Lifein post

and we will be getting into
as Paul Harvey says
"the rest of the story"

==================================================

We all know the rest of the story. But at the time God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son, he could not know that God would stop him at the last minute and substitute a ram caught in the bushes. For if Abraham did know that God was only testing him, it would not have been a real test of whether Abraham was really ready to truly sacrifice his son. This passage has been one of the most puzzling passages in all of Scripture, prompting numerous commentaries to try to explain it.

However my point still stands, which is when God speaks, Man cannot judge God, even if we cannot understand or justify why God would say that. Just as God's instructions to Abraham seems contrary to God's own law, Abraham did not judge God. Similarly, when Christ says "this is my blood - take and drink", we cannot judge Christ and say "Christ would never tell us to break the prohibition on drinking blood - how disgusting!" We take God at His word even when God's word does not seem to make sense to us.

=======================================================================

Lifein says;
This passage has been one of the most puzzling passages in all of Scripture, prompting numerous commentaries to try to explain it.
========================================

only to the theologians; Lifein; only to the theologians;
.
the Babe's / Babies in Christ

​

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,​

he cannot see the kingdom of God.​

as Christ said many times
Thank you father for hidding these things,
but revealing them unto babes

==========================================

Deut. 9:28​

Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;​

look not unto the stubbornness of this people,​

nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:​

​

28 Lest the land whence thou broughtest us out say,​

Because the Lord was not able​

to bring them into the land which he promised them,​

and because he hated them,​

he hath brought them out to slay them in the wilderness.​

​

Lk.14:28​

For which of you, intending to build a tower,​

sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost,​

whether he have sufficient to finish it?​

​

29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation,​

and is not able to finish it,​

all that behold it begin to mock him,​

​

Saying,​

This man began to build, and was not able to finish.​

.
God is using Abraham
the Father of many nations
to show the world what it will cost to
"Redeem the Son's of Jacob"
the 12 tribes
.

Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest,​

It shows the world, what it would cost the Father
.

for God so loved the world, he sent his only son​

.
Issac was well capeable of saying no, not me
and outrunning a 100 year old man
know ye not, he could have called 10,000 angels to set himself free,
.
its a test of Issac which prefigured / Christ the promised son;
what it would cost him / Christ to be the redeemer
for the Sons of Jacob.
.
For which of you, intending to build a tower,
sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost,
whether he have sufficient to finish it?

29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation,
and is not able to finish it,
all that behold it begin to mock him,
.

​

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,​

he cannot see the kingdom of God.​

as Christ said many times
Thank you father for hidding these things,
but revealing them unto babes

 

[Buzzard]

Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal

One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal,
.
Maybe one of these men can tell us what James was speaking of
Acts 15:20 "abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality,
from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood."

if you recall; Acts was about
all these heresies were that were being taught
and were coming from;
yep; Peter and his minions
and Peter was to be blamed

 

[Buzzard]

Gen. 22:15
And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham
out of heaven the second time,
16 And said,
By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,
for because thou hast done this thing,
and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
...
And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham,
saying,
Hey Abraham;
I have soon good news for you

Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor;
Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram,
And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel.
And Bethuel begat Rebekah:
.
Posters do you think for one moment,
Abraham did not know whou
"his most trusted Servant":
would be bringing home.
.
do you posters realize what God the Father just proved
to the Children of Abraham;
and by extention
that his son / Christ; which Issac prefigured
was worthy to be the Bridegroom
.

​

And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham,​

saying,​

Hey Abraham;​

I have soon good news for you​

​

Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor;​

Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram,​

And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel.​

And Bethuel begat Rebekah:​

.
Rebeckah; the Bride
The most precious cargo any Camel had ever carried
bar none
and she cost the Father (all the wealth of Abraham)
.

2 Corinthians 11:​

for I have espoused you to one husband,​

that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.​

.
amazingly enough;
Rome thinks they can boss her around
and rule over her.
.

**Clement speaks of Rome "turning its attention" to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. And he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a universal context -- a context he could only invoke if Rome had universal jurisdiction. And, Clement continues:​

​

"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." (First Clement, Chapter 46)​

​

Here, Clement speaks on behalf of the universal Church in condemning the Corinthian schism. And, he goes on:​

​

"Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." (First Clement, Chapter 57)​

/
I don't thing it was The Bride / Corinthians that had
"the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue."
.

"

 

[Buzzard]

//
LifeIn said:

Jhn 6:51
Whoever eats this bread will live forever.

Jhn 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

They now have access to eternal life, whereas before this they did not.
===================end Lifein ???????
.
W-o-W; how true it is
.
these speak evil of those things which they know not:

but what they know naturally, as brute beasts,​

in those things they corrupt themselves.​

​

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity,​

when they feast with you,​

feeding themselves without fear:​

clouds they are without water, carried about of winds;​

trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit,​

twice dead, plucked up by the roots;​

​

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame;​

wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.​

.
Lifein says
They now have access to eternal life, whereas before this they did not.
===================end Lifein ???????

Lifein; have you never read

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob?
God is not the God of the dead,
but of the living.

 

[LifeIn]

No, the passage that was quoted where Jesus said he was speaking in figurative language was way before even Palm Sunday and the entry into Jerusalem. It was certainly before they were at table at the Last Supper.

@Atemi :

I was incorrect in this ordering of events. John 16:25 was during or after the Last Supper, as you said. However the referent of John 16:25 is the verses immediately preceding, i.e. John 16:16-24. None of these verses refer to the consecration of the bread and wine at the Last Supper. In fact John's account of the Gospel is unlike the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's method of storytelling is vastly different from the others. John's gospel contains no account of the birth of Jesus, the journey to Bethlehem, Jesus' childhood, etc. However John does set the origin of Jesus as the Son of God much earlier, before the beginning of time itself, as the Logos ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.") In a way, John's focus is much deeper, even if it is lacking in physical details. One of those details is the consecration of the bread the wine, and the "take and eat, for this is my body" (although it is foreshadowed earlier in John 6:51). It is unlikely that John 16:25 is referring to that since it is totally missing from that gospel. And as we see from John 16:17-18 the disciples had just expressed confusion over a specific remark that Jesus made (vs. 10-16). That is the immediate speech that they found confusing and that is the speech Jesus means when he says in vs. 25 "I have told you this in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but I will tell you clearly about the Father." The "this" referred to in vs. 25 is what he had just said, not something he said in some speech recorded in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Therefore your use of vs 25 to discredit the real presence of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine is baseless. But I do apologize for mixing up the order of events in John's gospel. I hope that I have set it right now.

 

[WilliamC]

Is it written in invisible ink?

From the popes infallible ink well.

 

[balshan]

From the popes infallible ink well.

I wonder where they get that ink from?

 

[WilliamC]

I wonder where they get that ink from?

from the ground up pages of the Scriptures.