Disciples Doubts

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
In reviewing my original post I tried to add to it but the time to edit expired on me. Iwanted to add that while we accept these teachings on faith that faith is grounded in the constant teaching of the Apostles and their successors. What we teach today is the same as what was taught in the Apostolic Age. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians that to eat the body of Christ unworthily is to eat damnation:

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." [1 Cor 11:23-29 KJV]

Now this is scripture so we must accept it as true. Paul says he received this from Jesus and not someone else. So again what Paul received is true. He then reiterates the Last Supper sequence spoken by Jesus. Paul does not think this is a metaphor for he states that anyone who eats the body of Jesus unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. He is referring to those who crucified Jesus. They were the ones guilty ofHis body and blood but those who eat the body and drink the cup unworthily are in the same boat. And he strengthens that by saying they eat and drink their own damnation. There is no way that Paul is talking about some metaphor. Not when you are speaking or damning yourself by just eating bread. Here having unconfessed mortal sin makes one "unworthy".

Originally Posted by William C

Oh please. You’re guessing what the passage means based upon your eucharistic presuppositions. You cannot prove transubstantiation. You can assert it, but that’s it. That’s as far as you can go, and no farther.

Wrong pal, Just as Jesus told the Jews that there was an OT seat of authority that Moses occupied and that seat of authority continued after him to even Jesus's time when the Pharisees occupied it. So to there is a seat of authority in the NT that Peter occupied and that authority continued after his martyrdom. This is attested to by scripture. Mathew 16:18-19 is the NT perfection of Isaiah 22:22 to include the keys of the kingdom. In Acts the church in Antioch appealled to the Apostles in Jerusalem to settle a problem there with the Judiacizers. If you recall it was the Judiacizers who appealled to scripture. But the apostles did not consult scripture. Instead their response was recorded in Acts 15:28-29:

"28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Notice no appeal to scripture here. The Apostles claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The sola scripturists [Judiacizers] lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Not so. The substance of the bread [its essence] changes [transubstantiates] The accidents stay the same. Accidents are those things that we can see, touch, taste, hear, etc. These remain the same but the actual essence changes.

Originally Posted by William C

You know, I could place before you, or any Catholic, a host consecrated by a priest, and an unconsecrated host, and you couldn’t tell the difference.

Corect, It would look, taste, feel, the same. In fact all of our material senses would discern no difference. But our material senses are limited to detecting the accidents of something and not the essence of something. The essence is the same as the substance. That is why the word is TRANSUBSTANTIATION and not TRANSACCIDENTIATION. You make the same mistake as the Jews and the disciples who left Jesus in John 6.

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
There is no difference though in Jesus words. Neither are metaphors as you would like to believe. Paul's words completely destroys that argument.

Originally Posted by William C

There is not argument about Jesus using metaphors in John 6. Jesus did use metaphors . I’ve given the definition of, and the grammatical construction of a metaphor, and it is the exact grammatical construction Jesus uses at the last supper.

Paul did not think so. His revealation came directly from Jesus and he said that the bread was the body of Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You don't damn yourself to hell because of a metaphor… But if I eat or drink of the body and blood of Jesus unworthily then I and you too would be on a one way trip to eternal damnation.

Originally Posted by William C

You’re too much.

One isn’t damned for partaking in an unworthy manner. You’d know that if you read the scripture instead of apologetics arguments. There’s no damnation mentioned in that passage, but JUDGMENT, and Paul tells us what that judgment is: weakness, sickness, sleep (v30).

You might want to take note of this: “sleep” is a term for “death” for Christians. Notice in verse 32 that those who partake unworthily are taken out of the world by God before they sin so badly they are judged as the rest of the world. IOW before their salvation can be lost, if that were possible, and it isn’t.

Again, there's no eternal damnation mentioned in that passage. That comes out of your presuppositions concerning the eucharist.

The KJV translates the Greek as damnation. Now this favorite version of protestants is hardly a Cathlic translation. In addition look at 1Co 11:29 where in Paul writes:

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. "

Did you get that last part, ...not discerning the Lord's body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord's Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one's soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.

Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh
[1Co 1:10].

As for your point about verse 30 which states:

"30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

We have to ask what is this "cause" does this this verse refer to. The answer is that it refers to verse 29 which states:

"29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.

[Michael Francis]

Please maintain a demeanor or mutual charity and respect or this thread will be closed and more citations issued.
See the link in my sig line below for more info.

[Farsight001]

Originally Posted by William C

I know with complete, absolute certaintly that I'm saved forever, and that I will never lose my salvation because I had an incredibly special feeling, all over my body, when I first believed, and that feeling has never left me, but grows ever stronger each time I read the Scripture in which the Lord tells His church that salvation is forever, and cannot be lost.

I've had that feeling like 20 times before.

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by William C

I know with complete, absolute certaintly that I'm saved forever, and that I will never lose my salvation because I had an incredibly special feeling, all over my body, when I first believed, and that feeling has never left me, but grows ever stronger each time I read the Scripture in which the Lord tells His church that salvation is forever, and cannot be lost.

I hope, for your sake, that one day that incredible feeling grows so strong that it guides you into the church established by Jesus Christ.

[pete 29]

Originally Posted by Michael Francis

Please maintain a demeanor or mutual charity and respect or this thread will be closed and more citations issued.
See the link in my sig line below for more info.

I thought Sr. Ethel was after me for not doing my homework again.

[William C]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

I hope, for your sake, that one day that incredible feeling grows so strong that it guides you into the church established by Jesus Christ.

I'm already a member of it.

[William C]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Aaah you make the classic protestant mistake. You assume that since Jesus and the NT writers quoted scripture then they must be sola scripturists and thus they provide a basis for that failed doctrine of man. But I will remind you that we Catholics will quote scripture also and we are not sola scripturists. To further rebuke your claim I will remind you that Jesus used Jewish tradition that was not written, let alone written in Jewish scripture. In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus speaks of a source of authority that is not in scripture.

Your argument about scripture proof as a novelty is refuted by the fact that Jesus and apostles proofed from Scripture.

Originally Posted by inkaneer

"1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger."

Look for this 'Moses' seat' in the OT and you will not find it. Yet Jesus tells the crowd they are to practice and observe what the Pharisees tell them. Even in the Old Testament there was a source of authority comparable to the authority of the Church in the NT. But the fact that I want to make is that this disproves your 'Jesus was a sola scripturist' idea Now if you can come up with a Bible verse that says we should only accept scripture as authoritative then you will have something. But the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura was wriiten by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians in which he says:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

That is scripture and because it is scripture it is as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2,000 years ago.

And Jesus and apostles also offered proof from Scripture so your assertion remains refuted.

[William C]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

The KJV translates the Greek as damnation. Now this favorite version of protestants is hardly a Cathlic translation. In addition look at 1Co 11:29 where in Paul writes:

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. "

The KJV is wrong. It’s krima, judgment, and I pointed you to the judgments, and also demonstrated that judgment was given so that the believer wouldn’t be judged as the world, IOW, NOT BE CONDEMNED AS THE WORLD.

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Did you get that last part, ...not discerning the Lord's body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord's Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one's soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.

Paul nowhere says the bread is the body, but that the body isn’t being properly discerned. That’s probably the church (cf vv20-22), with some of the members of the body mistreating other members of the body.

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh [1Co 1:10].

Your uncertainty is showing. Krima judgment, as I said.

Originally Posted by inkaneer

So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.

That’s what Paul says, it’s right there in the passage.

Your difficulty is that you are not reading the scripture, but are quoting to me the standard Catholic apologetic argument for that passage that you read somewhere.

Read the scripture.

[William C]

Originally Posted by R_C

But I know that it is always a possibility for me to mess up and reject that salvation which the Lord has given me without any conditions the moment I fell in love with Him and acknowledged Him as my Lord and my God. How many of us do it constantly

I understand. That’s the danger of having to save yourself. Those of us who have Christ as a savior don’t have that concern.

Originally Posted by R_C

They don't just do this by openly offending Him and disobeying Him, but also by not doing His will, which is to love and help each other. If we love God, then we will do all we can to serve Him and help one another.

That’s a very protestant position you hold, R_C, a very protestant position indeed.

Originally Posted by R_C

I see salvation as a personal key on which Christ engraves our name. That key is ours forever, but it is up to us whether or not we receive it from the Lord's hands. While we could never make that key by ourselves, it is through what we do to one another that we reach out our hand and receive it from the Lord's hands. If we were to rejoice at the sight of the Lord handing us the key, yet were to remain still, then we would resemble the virgins who knew that their beloved was coming but ran out of light and through their fault were left outside in the darkness. For salvation is forever, but it can be lost.

As I said, the road to self-salvation is fraught with danger, but for those of those whose savior is Christ, the yoke is easy, and the burden is light (Mt 11:28-30).

Run in such a way as to get the prize. I therefore so run, not with uncertainty; so fight I, not as one that beats the air: but I chastise my body, and lead it captive, lest after having preached to others I should be myself rejected.

Yes, preaching is tough. Thank God for Paul and every other preacher, preaching doesn’t determine salvation, but faith in Christ (2 Tim 3:15).

[Faithdancer]

Originally Posted by Michael Francis

Please maintain a demeanor or mutual charity and respect or this thread will be closed and more citations issued.
See the link in my sig line below for more info.

Please don't smack William C, Sister! We've actually grown fond of him, and think he'll make a fine Catholic Christian one day!

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Aaah you make the classic protestant mistake. You assume that since Jesus and the NT writers quoted scripture then they must be sola scripturists and thus they provide a basis for that failed doctrine of man. But I will remind you that we Catholics will quote scripture also and we are not sola scripturists. To further rebuke your claim I will remind you that Jesus used Jewish tradition that was not written, let alone written in Jewish scripture. In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus speaks of a source of authority that is not in scripture.

Originally Posted by William C

Your argument about scripture proof as a novelty is refuted by the fact that Jesus and apostles proofed from Scripture.

That is incorrect. I did not say that using scripture as proof was a novelty. What I said was using scripture ALONE was a novelty. Scripture is an entirely useful source but it is not the only source. Scripture calls the church the pillar and bulwark of truth. It makes no such claim about itself. Jesus established a church with authority because that church would be guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth. So that church cannot teach error. And it was that church that determined what was and what was not scripture. The canon of the Bible was no slam dunk affair. Took 400 years to arrive at just those 27 books of the New Testament. The Old Testam,ent was the opposite. It was a slam dunk. The church accepted the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures with its 46 books. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles were sola scripturists.



Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger."

Look for this 'Moses' seat' in the OT and you will not find it. Yet Jesus tells the crowd they are to practice and observe what the Pharisees tell them. Even in the Old Testament there was a source of authority comparable to the authority of the Church in the NT. But the fact that I want to make is that this disproves your 'Jesus was a sola scripturist' idea Now if you can come up with a Bible verse that says we should only accept scripture as authoritative then you will have something. But the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura was wriiten by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians in which he says:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

That is scripture and because it is scripture it is as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by William C

And Jesus and apostles also offered proof from Scripture so your assertion remains refuted.

Your logic is defective. Jesus acknowledges an authority other than the scriptures. The apostles in Acts 15 rejected the scripture proof offered by the Judiacizers. Instead they claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. And 2 Thess 2:15 tells us to hold onto those teachings we receive from both the Oral Tradition as well as the Written Tradition. So scripture actually refutes yor assertion utterly and completely.

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The KJV translates the Greek as damnation. Now this favorite version of protestants is hardly a Cathlic translation. In addition look at 1Co 11:29 where in Paul writes:

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. "

Originally Posted by William C

The KJV is wrong. It’s krima, judgment, and I pointed you to the judgments, and also demonstrated that judgment was given so that the believer wouldn’t be judged as the world, IOW, NOT BE CONDEMNED AS THE WORLD.

Paul only uses the Greek word krima for condemnation or damnation. He uses other Greek word for judgment. I posted this in my original response to you. And the KJV is wrong?????????? Please tell us by what authority do you make this proclamation. Are you a world class bible scholar with degrees to prove it? Are you an acknowledged expert in Koine Greek? Tell us sir. Enlightened us of the unwashed masses of that which makes you competent to utter this denigrating remark. We wait anxiously in anticipation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Did you get that last part, ...not discerning the Lord's body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord's Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one's soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.

Originally Posted by William C

Paul nowhere says the bread is the body, but that the body isn’t being properly discerned. That’s probably the church (cf vv20-22), with some of the members of the body mistreating other members of the body.

Well that is wrong completely. Not only that but ludicrous would seem to be a more apt description.


Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh [1Co 1:10].

Originally Posted by William C

Your uncertainty is showing. Krima judgment, as I said.

I know what you said. I said you were wrong and showed evidentiary proof to substantiate it. You have not done anything of like kind. You just go on and on making allegations with no proof, no basis and by doing so insult the intelligence of others who are reading this thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.

Originally Posted by William C

That’s what Paul says, it’s right there in the passage.
Your difficulty is that you are not reading the scripture, but are quoting to me the standard Catholic apologetic argument for that passage that you read somewhere.

Really? Paul said that Jesus wanted the Apostles to be weak, sickly and die? Is that what you got out of that passage? Now, not only have you insulted others reading this thread you just insulted Christ. Not a good move I suspect.

Originally Posted by William C

Read the scripture.

Your difficulty is that while you read the scripture you pass it through your preconcieved ideas and what emerges is your opinion and nothing more. What you want to forget is that Jesus established one church and prayed that one church would remain one church. Jesus even promised that church that He would remain with it till the end of the age and that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth. All of that is scriptural and therefore true. What you want to believe is that somewhere the church got lost. How that could happen I don't know because it isn't scriptural. Maybe the Holy Spirit took a nap or something. Maybe Jesus decided to go get a coffee and the church went bonkers. Whatever your reasoning is, it is proved wrong by the history of the church. It can be and has been shown many, many times that the teachings of the Catholic Church today are the same as the early church. The so called "reformation' reformed nothing. It was a revolt against the church led by a victim of child abuse whose treatment at the hands of his parents caused him to reject authority unless, of course, he was the one wielding it. Martin Luther lived to see the day when others, using Luther's own methods, would disagree with him on doctrine and he would be enraged that anyone dared to disagree with him. That was your glorious source for your man made doctrine of sola scriptura. So you tell me to read the scriptures. I do that as evidenced by the scriptural quotes I have given you. But I tell you to discern the scriptures rightly, not by your opinion but by the church that was established by Christ and not some breakaway denomination founded by a man whose core doctrine emanated from the depths of hell.

[William C]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

That is incorrect. I did not say that using scripture as proof was a novelty. What I said was using scripture ALONE was a novelty.

No you didn’t. Go read your post 207. The word “alone” is nowhere in that post.

Your assertion that you were referring to scripture alone is refuted, and your assertion that scripture proof is a 16th century novelty remains refuted.

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Your logic is defective.

And your assertion that scripture as a proof is a 16th century novelty is refuted.

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by William C

No you didn’t. Go read your post 207. The word “alone” is nowhere in that post.

Your assertion that you were referring to scripture alone is refuted, and your assertion that scripture proof is a 16th century novelty remains refuted.

In post 207 I quoted you stating the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by William C
"The reason any of the reformed churches accept any of the major teachings of Catholic church is because they can be proven from scripture. The reason they reject others is because they can’t be proven from scripture."

To which I posted this:

"This idea that something has to be be proven from scripture is both novel [a 16th century invention] as well as unscriptural."

In your post you stated the essentials of sola scriptura [scripture alone or only scripture] by saying that teachings that are to be accepted are those that can be proven by scripture and those that cannot are to be rejected. That sets scripture as the only authority and is sola scriptura per se.

Originally Posted by William C

And your assertion that scripture as a proof is a 16th century novelty is refuted.

Then maybe you can give us a teacher from the early church who specifically taught sola scriptura. Because I can you several that didn't. For instance, Basil the Great wrote this:

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

And Epiphanius of Salamis wrote this:

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom would cite the same verse I gave you, 2 Thess 2:15:


"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

And finally [for this post] there is Vincent of Lerins who a full millenium before Luther pointed out the fallacy of sola scriptura. He bears listening to:


"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

"Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).


NOW, It is your turn to provide the evidence to support your claims. Show us the evidence where someone in the early church taught scripture as the only authority.

By the way you got almost 200 posts in about eight days. Some people would label you as a troll. We have had others who came on here all ablaze initially and then fizzle out. Some of them were ardent sola scripturists also. But there just is not any evidence for sola scriptura before Luther. At least no one has ever presented any. Maybe you can?