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

[Atemi]

No you don't. Christ said the contents of the cup was wine. You do not take Him literally.

I assume you are referring to Mark 14:25

Matt 26:29 " I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father"

Catholic NAB

Christ is talking about the contents of the cup. You don't take Him literally.

He also said the body and blood are different elements. Catholics often skip the wine, and for a time, it was not even offered by your priests. You do not take Him literally.

How is taking communion in only one species indicative of not taking him literally?

He said of the bread "this is my body"
He said of the wine "this is my blood"

He commanded that they eat and drink both.

You do not take Him literally.

He says eating His body guarantees eternal life. You do not take Him literally.

He did not say eating his body (or drinking his blood) guarantees eternal life.

Falsehood.

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.

Why are you not telling the truth?

You don't even believe John 6 and definitely do not take Him literally!

Again and again, Catholics confess they simply do not believe Jesus.

 

[Atemi]

If you are still speaking of the Last Supper, I truly don't know what you are referring to when you say Jesus tells his friends he has been speaking figuratively.

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."

Our Lord nowhere endorsed your sect leaders anywhere in Scripture.

Our Lord selected those very leaders when he chose the Apostles to speak for him, just as he chose profits in the OT to speak for him then.

Your sect leaders are not the Apostles and are not prophets of God.

Christ emphatically condemned any of His people being called a Magisterium.

I don't think that word existed, so I doubt that he would condemn anyone for being called that.

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

Our Lord explicitly forbade any of His people being called a master....magister. Catholic after Catholic says we should disobey Christ.

Telling us that He wants us to do what He explicitly prohibited is devilish.

We must be careful how we pass judgement on God.

You just did.

You proposed that God instituted the very thing He prohibited.

Why would you do that?

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!".

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

I have heard Catholic women tell me that it was God's will that they get an abortion. Yes....they did not think like me and believe it to be devilish.

 

[LifeIn]

Matt 26:29 " I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father"

This is a standard Protestant objection. But the word order is ambiguous, for Luke's account of the Last Supper has these words before the consecration:

Luke 22:
15. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover*with you before I suffer,
16. for, I tell you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves;
18 for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

Here we have the consecration coming AFTER the prediction that he will not drink of the wine until the Kingdom of God comes. We know that the Gospel accounts are not necessarily written in chronological order.

Also it is quite possible that Jesus is describing the appearance of the contents of the cup and not contradicting himself in declaring it to be his blood of the New Covenant. Describing things by their appearance is common, even in our day. When the weatherman says "the sun will set at 7 PM" does he really mean that the sun will move up or down over the earth? No, he is describing the sunset in terms of the appearance, not in terms of its reality.

Also, Jesus could be referring to what the contents of the cup was. Another example of this type of speech is in Genesis when Eve is called "Adam's bone", when in fact she is what God made out of Adam's bone. If God could speak that way in Genesis, He could also speak that way in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Finally, any other interpretation has Christ contradicting himself, saying it is his blood and then saying it is not.

He said of the bread "this is my body"
He said of the wine "this is my blood"

He commanded that they eat and drink both.

He said "do this" and "do that". Given that it was his closest friends, it most likely came across as an invitation that, being his friends, they all took him up on his suggestion, or invitation, if you will. When you go to a party with your friends and the host says, "drink up, everybody", I doubt that those guests take that as a command for which they will be punished if they do not obey.

 

[LifeIn]

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.

Jesus is speaking of what the bread and wine (become his body and blood) enable. They now have access to eternal life, whereas before this they did not.

 

[Atemi]

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.

No. Our Lord did NOT say they have access to eternal life. He explicitly stated "has eternal life" and "I will raise them up at the last day."

You do not take Him literally.

 

[LifeIn]

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. And it refers to what he had just said, which was verse 16:
"A little while and you will no longer see me, and again a little while later and you will see me."
Verse 25 in no way refers to Jesus' words of consecration.

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 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.

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).

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.

 

[balshan]

This verse is well before the Last Supper. And it refers to what he had just said, which was verse 16:
"A little while and you will no longer see me, and again a little while later and you will see me."
Verse 25 in no way refers to Jesus' words of consecration.



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


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.


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 is no accounting for disobedient self-proclaimed Christians.

There is no acccounting for RCs who follow men and never test, judge or discern what they are told.

Yep your leaders are hypocrites that lay burdens on the people that are not necessary. I have yet to see or know a humble RC.

 

[David1701]

If you think this passage shows that repentance is not the result of man's choice you are drawing more from it than is actually there. Here Timothy is expressing a prayer to God someone come to their senses. That does not mean the choice is not theirs to make. Don't we make prayers like that too? A mother may pray that her daughter choose to stop using drugs. Does that mean she expects God to take control of the daughter and force her to come to that decision? No. The mother is just pouring out her heart to God about what she hopes will happen. The mother still understands that the daughter will have to make this decision of her own free will. So it is with Timothy in this passage. He is pouring out his heart to God, expressing the hope that those who quarrel will see the error of their ways and repent - of their own free will.


Of course, but the implication is still that the person chooses to believe or not believe. And before he has made that choice (which is open to everyone) he could be anyone whatsoever.


The act of believing is an act of will, therefore by definition, man's choice.


You are confusing the general tendency of the world ("the world hates Jesus") with the choices of individuals in that world.


I never said the ability to repent was "mere", and I never said it was not also a gift from God. My claim was that this gift is offered to all.


But you have not established that man is intrinsically unwilling to love God. You are just assuming that some men (or maybe all men?) are unable.


If that ability is granted or not granted by factors external to that man, then denying the man the ability is the same as denying him the option. For example, I place you on a desert island and give you the option of escaping by a rowboat that I have anchored 100 feet off shore. So you have that objective option to escape. But I also chain you to a palm tree so that you do not have the ability to reach the boat. Did I really give you an option? Of course not.


That example is just my my example above. I would say that if God made me without legs, then He didn't really give me the option.


It is an enabling reason why we evangelize, but it is not the only reason.


Even the part I bolded? "Love wants everyone to have a chance to respond to God’s offer of salvation." That sounds again like an invitation from God, which is why I posted it.

I think it's time for me to wipe the dust off my feet.

 

[Mike McK]

I think it's time for me to wipe the dust off my feet.

Yep. I just left a Catholic-Christian Facebook group.

I felt like all I was doing was throwing pearls before swine and ignoring Proverbs 26:4 for far too long.

I thought the Catholics here were bad, but that page should be burned to the ground.

I'm honestly beginning to understand why Jonah felt the way he did.

 

[Buzzard]

balshan said:
You actually don't believe what it means. You believe in the pagan practice of eating god.
===================================

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 (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god).

 

[taurik]

Yep. I just left a Catholic-Christian Facebook group.

I felt like all I was doing was throwing pearls before swine and ignoring Proverbs 26:4 for far too long.

I thought the Catholics here were bad, but that page should be burned to the ground.

I'm honestly beginning to understand why Jonah felt the way he did.

I feel the same way about this board

 

[leonard03782]

I feel the same way about this board

You are not chained to your keyboard. Feel free to leave at any time.

 

[leonard03782]

balshan said:
You actually don't believe what it means. You believe in the pagan practice of eating god.
===================================

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 (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god).

Why does this sound so familiar to me?

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I feel the same way about this board

Are you a new poster (12 posts) or a returning poster?

 

[taurik]

Are you a new poster (12 posts) or a returning poster?

Returning after a long absence. I sometimes question my decision to return

 

[balshan]

I feel the same way about this board

That is because you do not keep to the op.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Returning after a long absence. I sometimes question my decision to return

Why?

 

[Buzzard]

//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!".

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).

===================
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"

 

[Atemi]

Matt 26:29 " I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father"

This is a standard Protestant objection.

Sorry, but that is from a Catholic bible.

But the word order is ambiguous

It is from your own bible. This is how official Catholic translators understand it.

Also it is quite possible that Jesus is describing the appearance of the contents of the cup

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

Christ did not say anything about the appearance. He described the contents of the cup. You do not drink an "appearance."

Also, Jesus could be referring to what the contents of the cup was.

He said "this" in your Catholic bible.

Finally, any other interpretation has Christ contradicting himself, saying it is his blood and then saying it is not.

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.

He said of the bread "this is my body"
He said of the wine "this is my blood"

He commanded that they eat and drink both.

He said "do this" and "do that". Given that it was his closest friends, it most likely came across as an invitation that, being his friends, they all took him up on his suggestion, or invitation, if you will.

There was no "suggestion" anywhere in there.

You added that. You don't take Christ literally.

When you go to a party with your friends and the host says, "drink up, everybody", I doubt that those guests take that as a command for which they will be punished if they do not obey.

If one is a suggestion, then they are both suggestions.

Again, you don't take Him literally.

 

[LifeIn]

//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.