Why do RCs have a problem with ALL?

balshan

Well-known member
ALL is a small word but it makes a big difference in a sentence. According to the Merriam Webster it means:

: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of

:the whole number or sum of

:every member

1 Tim 1:17

17 All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.

2 Tim 3:16+

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Rom 3:23

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Yet RCs think ALL are sinners means except Mary and one RC implies there are others who are sinless. Not sure what he thinks all means. RCs ignore scriptures like 1 Cor 5:11 which means they do not think ALL scripture is important. Then they give honour to others scripture is clear ALL honour is to go to God.

Why do RCs think all doesn't mean what it means?
 
ALL is a small word but it makes a big difference in a sentence. According to the Merriam Webster it means:

: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of

:the whole number or sum of

:every member

1 Tim 1:17

17 All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.

2 Tim 3:16+

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Rom 3:23

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Yet RCs think ALL are sinners means except Mary and one RC implies there are others who are sinless. Not sure what he thinks all means. RCs ignore scriptures like 1 Cor 5:11 which means they do not think ALL scripture is important. Then they give honour to others scripture is clear ALL honour is to go to God.

Why do RCs think all doesn't mean what it means?
Is, is a small word too.

Why do Protestants have a problem with "is?" Why do Protestants, like Bill Clinton, not know what "is" means?

Note by the way that "All" is only one of many possible renderings. It can also be rendered "Each Scripture" "Every Scripture" or even "Every Scripture God Breathed is useful..."

The point? If the word is translated as "Every" then using this verse as a proof text for Sola Scriptura proves too much. It would mean that one Scripture verse is more than sufficient for training in righteousness, etc. It would mean we do not need any other Scripture becasue "Every Scripture" is sufficient. But Protestants do not maintain that. They maintain it is the Scriptures taken as a whole, not just one or two verses or books.
 
Is, is a small word too.

Why do Protestants have a problem with "is?" Why do Protestants, like Bill Clinton, not know what "is" means?

Note by the way that "All" is only one of many possible renderings. It can also be rendered "Each Scripture" "Every Scripture" or even "Every Scripture God Breathed is useful..."

The point? If the word is translated as "Every" then using this verse as a proof text for Sola Scriptura proves too much. It would mean that one Scripture verse is more than sufficient for training in righteousness, etc. It would mean we do not need any other Scripture becasue "Every Scripture" is sufficient. But Protestants do not maintain that. They maintain it is the Scriptures taken as a whole, not just one or two verses or books.
Prove your claim that non RCs do not know what is means?

Diversion once again by an RC.
 
Prove your claim that non RCs do not know what is means?

Diversion once again by an RC.
Well, Jesus said "This IS my Body."

Protestants rewrite this to say:

"This is NOT my body, this is actually just mere bread and wine."

But I didn't divert. I dealt with your alleged proof-text for Sola Scriptura too.
 
Well, Jesus said "This IS my Body."

Protestants rewrite this to say:

"This is NOT my body, this is actually just mere bread and wine."

But I didn't divert. I dealt with your alleged proof-text for Sola Scriptura too.
You are wrong once again. Jesus says it symbolically which RCs refuse to understand. NON RCs completely understand its importance and that it is a memorial.

No you were diverting and it was not alleged proof text, it was proof and you have nothing to support your false beliefs.
 
You are wrong once again. Jesus says it symbolically which RCs refuse to understand. NON RCs completely understand its importance and that it is a memorial.

No you were diverting and it was not alleged proof text, it was proof and you have nothing to support your false beliefs.
So well said balshan!

To know exactly what was ordained during the Last Supper the Bible states:
"Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22: 19-20

But those proponents of the Roman Catholic Eucharist craftily point to Jesus' words recorded in John 6 instead. Although that chapter does not deal with the Last Supper, the Roman Catholic Churchs' teaching is that Jesus' words there are taken to relate to the Communion meal in John 6: 51-55. The RCC has continuously indoctrinated the followers of it's propaganda, so they are confident that Roman Catholics in general will not investigate what the Word of God itself actually teaches.
 
You are wrong once again. Jesus says it symbolically which RCs refuse to understand. NON RCs completely understand its importance and that it is a memorial.

No you were diverting and it was not alleged proof text, it was proof and you have nothing to support your false beliefs.
If He said it symbolically, His disciples would not have walked out on Him.
Jesus spoke literally.
 
If He said it symbolically, His disciples would not have walked out on Him.
Jesus spoke literally.
If they walked out they weren't real disciples were they, disciples do not walk out on their teacher. Jesus spoke symbolically. Please name those disciples that walked out especially at the Last Supper? Only Judas betrayed the Lord at the last supper.
 
ALL is a small word but it makes a big difference in a sentence. According to the Merriam Webster it means:

: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of

:the whole number or sum of

:every member

1 Tim 1:17

17 All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.

2 Tim 3:16+

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Rom 3:23

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Yet RCs think ALL are sinners means except Mary and one RC implies there are others who are sinless. Not sure what he thinks all means. RCs ignore scriptures like 1 Cor 5:11 which means they do not think ALL scripture is important. Then they give honour to others scripture is clear ALL honour is to go to God.

Why do RCs think all doesn't mean what it means?
Because it refutes their fairy tales.
 
If He said it symbolically, His disciples would not have walked out on Him.
Jesus spoke literally.

The twelve had the same reaction that the crowd had, and Jesus corrected their thinking and showed them, HE was indeed speaking symbolically.

The crowd misunderstood, because they didn't believe He was who He said He was, and what He had come to do. The crowd was not interested in fellowshiping with God, they were instead, looking to have their bellies filled, as Jesus had done the day before.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life
; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
 
The sermon in John 6, occurred in capernaum, and the last supper was a year and a half later in Jerusalem. The apostles fully understood that Jesus was speaking symbolically. Because He plainly told them so. But rc's choose to ignore and turn a blind eye to verse 63.

Jesus while on the cross, just before He died, said.... "It is finished!". The rc mass calls Jesus a liar.

Romans 6:9-10
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him.
The death he died, he died to sin
once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
 
You are wrong once again. Jesus says it symbolically which RCs refuse to understand.
It is interesting that you reject a nuanced meaning of "all have sinned" yet have no problem accepting a nuanced meaning of "this is my body". The very thing you accuse Catholics of doing, you do yourself. I can understand how you might have some arguments that one is meant to be symbolic and the other is not, but if that is the case, the distinction rests with the strength of your argument and not with some absolute claim like "Catholics have a problem with ALL".
 
It is interesting that you reject a nuanced meaning of "all have sinned" yet have no problem accepting a nuanced meaning of "this is my body". The very thing you accuse Catholics of doing, you do yourself. I can understand how you might have some arguments that one is meant to be symbolic and the other is not, but if that is the case, the distinction rests with the strength of your argument and not with some absolute claim like "Catholics have a problem with ALL".
Two different contexts with two entirely different subjects.

But Paul, quoting the OT, makes it VERY clear that NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE:

Romans 3, quoting the Psalms:

For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not
know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]


NOT ONE PERSON is righteous in God's eyes, on his or her own. Paul pretty much puts the kibbosh that "all" in this case doesn't mean "some." NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS.

No one--not even Mary. But was she saved? Certainly! She believed in God and His promise to send the Messiah through her virgin body, so that He might be "born of a woman, born UNDER the Law, to redeem us from the curse of the Law" as Paul also says.

So there is NO NUANCE here in "no one is righteous; NO, NOT ONE." This includes everyone who has ever lived--except Jesus Christ, Who, alone in all the Bible, was the only person to be declared to be without sin.
 
Two different contexts with two entirely different subjects.
Yes, they are two entirely different subjects, but they both can be addressed either simplistically and literally, or symbolically and nuanced. The choice of which subject to address one way and which subject to address the other way seems entirely arbitrary and designed to support whichever view one wants to support.
 
You are wrong once again. Jesus says it symbolically which RCs refuse to understand. NON RCs completely understand its importance and that it is a memorial.

No you were diverting and it was not alleged proof text, it was proof and you have nothing to support your false beliefs.
Now who is rewriting the Scriptures?

Did Jesus say "This represents my body" or "This is a symbol of my body?" No.
 
Jesus did NOT sin at any time.

So Jesus was being literal huh? He wasn't speaking symbolically?

We keep hearing from rc's how they take on more and more Christ's divinity, with each wafer. travis clark, who was a rc priest, does NOT look like a spring chick. He looks old enough to of had enough wafers by now to have been as rc's like to claim, that through every mass they take on Jesus' total being.

Since a priest is eating and drinking Christ literally, and according to rc's is without fault, why didn't this keep this priest from desecrating an alter?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252888/louisiana-ex-priest-pleads-guilty-to-filming-pornographic-material-on-parish-altar
 
The sermon in John 6, occurred in capernaum, and the last supper was a year and a half later in Jerusalem. The apostles fully understood that Jesus was speaking symbolically. Because He plainly told them so. But rc's choose to ignore and turn a blind eye to verse 63.

Jesus while on the cross, just before He died, said.... "It is finished!". The rc mass calls Jesus a liar.
An excellent post A new day! Indeed, repeatedly the Roman Catholic Church calls Jesus a liar!
Looking back a bit at John 6: 60, we find that many of the disciples of Jesus said: "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" Jesus was well aware of their repeated complaints and He responded to them saying:

"Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. (vs. 61-64).

Roman Catholics are bound to scoff as they always do, many of them haughtily saying or thinking - 'wait just a minute here, the flesh profits nothing! I thought Jesus just said we must eat His flesh?' Yet, if the flesh profits nothing, Jesus must be speaking in spiritual terms. And that is what He says: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit."
Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for flesh as He did in the preceding verses. Therefore, He is emphaticaly stating that eating His literal flesh profits nothing! If the Lord Himself set the context of the dialogue we would do well to hear Him. He said that the words He speaks are spirit and that the flesh profits nothing. In other words Roman Catholics, Jesus has just told us He has spoken in a metaphor, so we need not to guess at it.
 
It is interesting that you reject a nuanced meaning of "all have sinned" yet have no problem accepting a nuanced meaning of "this is my body". The very thing you accuse Catholics of doing, you do yourself. I can understand how you might have some arguments that one is meant to be symbolic and the other is not, but if that is the case, the distinction rests with the strength of your argument and not with some absolute claim like "Catholics have a problem with ALL".
No it is taking those verses in context which RCs do not use. If we follow the RC logic of Jesus said this is my body without using the context of the meal then Jesus also said Peter is Satan. Then that means that the RCC have Satan has the head of their institution. If we follow RC logic then Herod is not a person but a fox. The list of Jesus using symbolic language is long.

I have presented over 12 reasons why this is my body is symbolic and not one RC has been able to rebutt them. Also whenever there is a real change in the physical there is evidence of said change. One example is water into wine, taste like wine your bread into flesh still tastes like bread and not flesh, your wine into blood still tastes like wine. There is absolutely no evidence of said change. In fact, even the behaviour of RCs do not change after consuming Jesus. To consume flesh and blood is to go against God's very commandments. There are so many reasons why this is my body is symbolic and not literal.

For all have sinned is really the whole problem for humans throughout scripture from the time of the fall. The only exception is Jesus, if Jesus had sinned then He would not have been the spotless lamb. RCs only use all have sinned to justify their leaders foul, scriptural unacceptable behaviour. It is more than a few because so many became part of the sin when they did not expose the sin but chose to hide it. Otherwise RCs make out all does not mean all. Nowhere does scripture support Mary being an exception to the rule.

So it is RCs who have the problem with those words.
 
Back
Top