The Joys of Catholicism

[JudgeRightly]

The Church has always taken that verse literally, and not (as RD "merely asserted") as a metaphor.

That's nice.

Prima facie, to modern, post-Reformation nondenominational Evangelical Christians, it appears that it at least possibly could be a metaphor, but the ancient Church never took the Scriptures according to their prima facie readings of them, but they always took Apostolic teachings as the prima facie meaning of Scriptures, and the Apostolic teachings on the "cloud of witnesses" is that it is literal.

I refer you back to post #305, and all of it's subsequent responses.

In contrast to the Apostolic teaching on the verse, RD's view is: "can only be a metaphor. There is NO literal way to take that."

To use your phrase, RD's take is a mere assertion.

Would you like to try to demonstrate how he is wrong? Or are you just going to merely assert he is wrong?

22 For this reason Moses has given you circumcision—not that it is from Moses, but it is from the forefathers—and you circumcise a man on a sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you violently angry at me because I made a man completely well on a sabbath?

This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision, but is Jesus criticizing the Jewish teachers of the Old Covenant law.

The point is that God gave the command to be circumcised to His people, and that the command has not been annulled since Abraham.

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision.

Right. It's Jesus telling His disciples to "go and teach people to observe all things I have commanded you."

One of the things He commanded was for His people to circumcise, per the passage I gave immediately prior to this one, because He affirmed the law of Moses, and if you keep one law, then you must keep ALL the laws.

8 “He also gave him a covenant of circumcision, and he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 family heads.

Stephen is not an Apostle, and Stephen wasn't teaching circumcision either, he was reviewing the history of the Old Covenant /Old Testament.

Very important history, in fact.

The point I'm trying to make here isn't that he's giving a history lesson. It's that that history lesson shows that circumcision has always been required for God's chosen people.

45 And the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also on people of the nations.

This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision.

No, but it shows that the believers were circumcised, as per the Law of Moses. No?

2 So when Peter came up to Jerusalem, the supporters of circumcision began to criticize him,

Why would they criticize Peter if Peter, an Apostle, was teaching circumcision?

You seem to have forgotten the thrust of what I'm arguing.

Circumcision was always required.

Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Those "some men" are not said to be Apostles.

Do you think they were not taught well by the Apostles?

Why do you think they taught "you must be circumcised" if they themselves were not taught "you must be circumcised"?

25 Circumcision is, in fact, of benefit only if you practice law; but if you are a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Not an Apostle teaching circumcision.

Paul is not an Apostle?

He's not teaching about circumcision?

Good grief the pretzels you're contorting into to avoid admitting the obvious!

4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; ... 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— ... 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and men the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. ... 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.

I admit this is the closest you come to substantiating your claim that, “ The Apostles taught that you must be circumcized on the 8th day after birth. ” But it still falls short of proof.

"Two or three witnesses shall establish a matter."

I've given you multiple.

Nowhere does it say what any Apostles taught,

Circumcision is a part of the law.

Do you deny that the Apostles taught the law?

If not, then you cannot deny that they taught circumcision.

it says there were men who did teach circumcision, but not that they were Apostles, and it says that Peter was conflicted, which is granted.

Where did they get the idea of teaching circumcision, except from the Apostles and the law?

I feel that here, you are merely agreeing with me. Once the Acts 15 council was convened, there just wasn't even any doubt that no Apostles, or even any other teachers /bishops /elders, taught or would ever teach again circumcision (if they did, it would have been against the council's conclusion).

You seem confused.

The Jerusalem council was not to determine what "all believers" must do or not do.

The Jerusalem council was meant to determine whether PAUL'S CONVERTS were to circumcise (and by extention, to keep the law).

They were not determining from there-on-out what new converts in Jerusalem were to do.

Why?

BECAUSE PAUL'S GOSPEL WAS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THEIRS!

btw it wasn't just Paul but also Peter who convinced them (Acts 15:7-11) that circumcision was not a part of the New Covenant.

Because Paul had gone up before to speak in secret to Peter and a couple other Apostles, to explain it to them in private.

Well, let me know what you think now.

I think that you've not done a very good job explaining why the Bible teaches (and it does) that new believers do not have to circumcise yet old believers (prior to Acts 15) were required to, for salvation.

 

[Mike12]

Nah to the aggressive OP. Well, which Roman Catholics aren't bringing this directly on themselves? Protestantism? Isn't Elizabeth I an excommunicated son of a biscuit on Catholic Answers? How creative. Don't their own need to win forever? Didn't they spark the mutual excommunication between Rome and the Orthodox Church? They happily excommunicated Protestants. Then the original first and last charge as to whom is schismatic? Isn't it cute to claim Latin AMerica? When really the lowest cost cult exists between the romance language countries of Spain, France, and Italy. An Orthodox Patriarchy in Rome is the intent of the Pentarchy in which a fallible meeting of 5 men is an assembly that forms creeds.

 

[JudgeRightly]

 

[Nick M]

For me communion is for me to remember Christ's sacrifice for my sins. I remember that everyday.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

 

[Nick M]

And yet He instituted the Eucharist,

I would ask where, but you never show it. You show obvious symbolism, and show people who think like you and the Holy Spirit says they murmur and are lost.

 

[Idolater]

I would ask where, but you never show it. You show obvious symbolism, and show people who think like you and the Holy Spirit says they murmur and are lost.

Bear with me.

In jiujitsu the idea is to say, break your opponent's knee. In order to do this, in order to break anything really efficiently, you need to first get good leverage, and next look to break the thing in the middle. iow you're not going to try to break the knee by grabbing the knee itself. So the jiujitsu player instead gets leverage by holding his opponent's body far away from the knee he's going to try to break, meaning, at the ankle or foot, and somewhere at the torso basically. He then applies force from this leverage to break the knee, and if his opponent doesn't tap out, then his knee will break, because of the leverage and because the knee is right in the middle of the force being used to break it.

The Christian faith hinges on one proposition, and it is, to put it as Keith Green does in his rendition of the "Easter Song", "Jesus Christ is no longer dead (Glory to God, He is risen, Hallelujah, etc.)." Jesus Christ is no longer dead, if someone is to break Christianity, they need to break this proposition, and anti-Christians forever have tried to do it.

Vincent of Lerins in the 400s provided a four-part test for whether any teaching of the faith is true. The first is whether it conflicts with Scripture. But as Vincent points out, all the heresies throughout the Church's history were argued from the Scripture, so in such hard cases where the Scripture doesn't clearly contradict the teaching, he provides three more tests.

The first one is an obvious informal logical error, it is the appeal to popularity, basically asking the question, does everybody believe the teaching? Everybody meaning the Church.

The second test is, was it always believed?

And the third one is, is it believed everywhere?

This four part test is the test Vincent suggested, and you'll notice, there is no appeal to authority here, but rather, an appeal to facts, both the facts of Scripture itself, but also facts which are nonetheless objective and verifiable outside of Scripture.

So for the proposition, "Jesus Christ is no longer dead", obviously the Scripture does not conflict with it. Test one passed. But now there's the contrary position, that "Jesus Christ is no longer dead" is symbolic, or spiritual, or in some other way, it is not really what the Scripture seems to be saying. This idea too is not in conflict with Scripture, it just depends how you read the Scripture. For example Muslims don't believe Christ is risen from the dead because they think His death on the cross was an illusion (this is what the Quran says). And others, some of whom have participated on TOL itself, have said that Christ's Resurrection is spiritual or symbolic in some sense, they do not believe in the bodily Resurrection.

So now we ask, has the whole Church always and everywhere believed in the bodily Resurrection of Christ? And the answer to this question is yes, yes and yes. So therefore according Vincent's suggestion, "Jesus Christ is no longer dead" is literally, physically true.

Now substitute in that Christ is Really and Truly Present in the Eucharist? Firstly it does not conflict with the Scripture, so test one is passed. Next question is has the whole Church always believed in the Real Presence everywhere? And the answer here too is yes, yes, and yes. At least, up to the point of Vincent of Lerins.

There are two big historically significant facts about the contrary position that the Real Presence is false. The first one chronologically is found in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, who condemned a group of people who rejected the Real Presence, but the interesting thing about these people is that they also rejected the idea that Jesus came in the flesh. They believed that He was only spiritually present on Earth, and not physically, and so they reasoned that therefore He cannot be Really Present in the Eucharist either since He wasn't Really Present in His Earthly ministry either.

And the other significant fact about the contrary position is that after the Reformation people started to reject the Real Presence as well.

So it's really up to you, whether you think Vincent had some good points, or whether those who reject the Real Presence have successfully broken the knee of this teaching.

I don't think you have.

 

[Nick M]

Vincent of Lerins in the 400s

This is tactful misdirection. Slight of hand.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Do you know what makes you unworthy? That isn't rhetorical. And the answer is obvious. If you have read Paul's letters.

 

[Idolater]

This is tactful misdirection. Slight of hand.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

Meaning Muslims for example can't licitly partake of the Eucharist, since they do not even believe that He died in the first place (the Quran says it was an illusion).

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Do you know what makes you unworthy? That isn't rhetorical. And the answer is obvious. If you have read Paul's letters.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

7 Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.

 

[Idolater]

I would ask where [He instituted the Eucharist], but you never show it.

The Last Supper was a Passover celebration, and He, being our Passover (1st Corinthians 5:7), instituted the New Covenant Passover celebration, the Eucharist, and, while the Old Passover was celebrated once per year, the New Covenant celebration of the Passover is done each Sunday ("And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread", Acts 20:7, also cf. 1st Corinthians 16:2). Along with other holidays of obligation.

You show obvious symbolism, and show people who think like you and the Holy Spirit says they murmur and are lost.

The account of the Last Supper has the Lord holding or pointing to the bread and saying, "This is My body." In John chapter six He really underscores the literal nature of His words, doubling down when challenged.

Now, literal, as Leighton Flowers says, could mean "sacramentally", which doesn't exactly mean what we mean by literal most of the time, but it still does mean really, in an ontological sense. The Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation attempts to describe it a little more precisely, suggesting that the "substance" of the bread is changed, substance meaning the essence (what it is) plus its attributes or accidents. Usually only the essence changes, but sometimes, cf. Eucharistic miracles, also the accidents change.

 

[Bright Raven]

W doh you always

The Last Supper was a Passover celebration, and He, being our Passover (1st Corinthians 5:7), instituted the New Covenant Passover celebration, the Eucharist, and, while the Old Passover was celebrated once per year, the New Covenant celebration of the Passover is done each Sunday ("And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread", Acts 20:7, also cf. 1st Corinthians 16:2). Along with other holidays of obligation.



The account of the Last Supper has the Lord holding or pointing to the bread and saying, "This is My body." In John chapter six He really underscores the literal nature of His words, doubling down when challenged.

Now, literal, as Leighton Flowers says, could mean "sacramentally", which doesn't exactly mean what we mean by literal most of the time, but it still does mean really, in an ontological sense. The Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation attempts to describe it a little more precisely, suggesting that the "substance" of the bread is changed, substance meaning the essence (what it is) plus its attributes or accidents. Usually only the essence changes, but sometimes, cf. Eucharistic miracles, also the accidents change.

Why do you always place Jesus on the cross. He isn't there!

 

[Nick M]

Why do you always place Jesus on the cross. He isn't there!

I think you are asking why they have him on the cross in their church. It might not be the right reason. But I boast in the cross. And his crucifixion. I will even go in and sometimes take communion to proclaim his death, as Paul instructs us outsiders of the covenant.

 

[Nick M]

Now, literal, as Leighton Flowers says,

Just like godrulz.

 

[Nick M]

instituted the New Covenant

The Iraelites are not yet in their new covenant. When they are, they will have a born again body. You will know.

 

[Idolater]

Why do you always place Jesus on the cross. He isn't there!

One reason, 1st Corinthians 1:23 “ But we preach Christ crucified ”

Another is that an empty cross isn't actually the significant part, rather, it is the genre of art called "Pietà"

Pietà - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's Our Lady holding the lifeless body of Christ, which has been removed from the cross, thus leaving it empty.

The empty tomb is more cheerful than the empty cross.

 

[Nick M]

Meaning Muslims for example can't licitly partake

True, they can't. Because they are not believers. Every one is already condemned because of Adam. The Bible does say "the greater sin" for crucifying him. They will be counted with it. And suffer greater punishment. From which there will be no escape.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Every one is already condemned because of Adam.

Errm doesn't the Bible explicitly state that a man will not be held accountable for the sins of their fathers?

 

[Nick M]

Errm doesn't the Bible explicitly state that a man will not be held accountable for the sins of their fathers?

In crime and punishment of earthly governments. However....

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

The law is proof that the body is dead because of this sin.

 

[7djengo7]

The Christian faith hinges on one proposition, and it is, to put it as Keith Green does in his rendition of the "Easter Song", "Jesus Christ is no longer dead (Glory to God, He is risen, Hallelujah, etc.)." Jesus Christ is no longer dead, if someone is to break Christianity, they need to break this proposition, and anti-Christians forever have tried to do it.

Indeed, Jesus Christ is no longer dead; He died once, 2,000 years ago, a once-for-all blood sacrifice for all the sins of all mankind, was buried, and rose again, never to die again. Yet Rome, by means of its innumerable masses, perpetually tries to make Him dead, over, and over, and over -- and, if I'm not mistaken, anathematizes (and wherever possible, persecutes) all who do not believe Rome's communicants are actually making Him dead by eating a wafer they claim is Him. And, if Jesus Christ is not made dead by Rome's Eucharist, then Rome's Eucharist is no blood sacrifice, and is powerless to save sinners. Also, what better way for Rome to advertise their "sincere belief" that Jesus Christ is no longer dead than by brandishing a papal ferula featuring an image of Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, still dying, if not dead.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The first one

The second test

And the third one

This four part test

Did you forget number four?

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Did you forget number four?

No he didn't. Go back and read his post. He clearly stated that the first test was "whether it conflicts with Scripture."

Then he went on to describe 3 other tests. He unfortunately called those other tests 1, 2 and 3 thus potentially confusing anyone who skipped over the post looking to find fault in it.