The Joys of Catholicism

[Right Divider]

So when John the Baptist said Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, was this the Kingdom Gospel?

Yes and no.

The gospel of the kingdom is specifically that the kingdom was "at hand".

That God would baptize Israel with the Holy Ghost and with fire was already known, because it is recorded in scripture. The baptism of fire is the time of Jacob's trouble. It is a refining fire.

Zech 13:7-9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:7) ¶ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (13:8) And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein. (13:9) And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God. ​

​

Mal 3:1-4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (3:2) But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he [is] like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: (3:3) And he shall sit [as] a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. (3:4) Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.​

 

[Idolater]

Yes and no.

The gospel of the kingdom is specifically that the kingdom was "at hand".

That God would baptize Israel with the Holy Ghost and with fire was already known, because it is recorded in scripture. The baptism of fire is the time of Jacob's trouble. It is a refining fire.

Zech 13:7-9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:7) ¶ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (13:8) And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein. (13:9) And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God. ​

​

Mal 3:1-4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (3:2) But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he [is] like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: (3:3) And he shall sit [as] a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. (3:4) Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.​

But you do admit that the Church who is His body, the Body of Christ, is baptized with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Idolater]

Yet, Jesus did not even say "This is my [body, blood, soul, and divinity]," did He?

According to Paul:

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.

So why don't you believe Him? And notice, I don't have to answer this question, as this question does not apply to me, and it does mean that, initial plausibility is high for me because of what I believe, but for you, since you take His words here to be symbolic or metaphoric or allegoric, the initial plausibility that you believe Him here is lower than for me. It doesn't mean ofc that you don't believe Him, it just means, you need to defeate a defeater, that just does not apply to me and my position, because we all just take Him here "wooden literally", which is to say, merely prima facie. iow if He says, "This is My body", we just believe Him. We don't understand, maybe we will one day (transubstantiation) or not (mystery). But either way we believe Him.

• Did Jesus mean His blood was "broken for you"?
• Did Jesus mean His soul was "broken for you"?
• Did Jesus mean His divinity was "broken for you"?

His blood is poured out for you. And since He is undivided hypostatic union, therefore His soul is His divinity.

 

[Idolater]

What do you mean by that?

What do you mean by "make that up"?

You fail again. Jesus' body was always Jesus' body: Jesus' body was never bread.

But bread was His body. Jesus said so. Prima facie. Those are the words He used. Some, like the JWs, insert the word "means" into the words of consecration. But those are insertions, and Bible corrections.

To which are you referring by your pronoun "it" when you say "meaning, it is no longer bread": bread OR Jesus' body?

The Eucharist, the host.

According to Paul:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

• Which, according to Paul, did Jesus "brake": bread OR His body? (Correct answer: bread, and not His body.)
• Which, according to Jesus, "is broken for you": bread OR His body? (Correct answer: His body, and not bread.)

And, you're wrong also in your asinine, false claim that for Jesus to say "This is my body" is for Him to mean His body was previously not His body, but bread instead.

No one ever said that. You're trying to twist my words. But they're straight as arrows.

 

[Right Divider]

But you do admit that the Church who is His body, the Body of Christ, is baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Not "with" but "by".

1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not "with" but "by".

1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

​

It's the same word G1722 in both 1 Corinthians 12:13 and in Matthew 3:11.

 

[Right Divider]

It's the same word G1722 in both 1 Corinthians 12:13 and in Matthew 3:11.

There are reasons that different English words are used.

 

[Nick M]

you take His words here to be symbolic

He was going to the cross, where his body was broken for us.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

And you didn't put the highlight on the key, do this to remember him. Your reconciliation is at the cross. Not because you remembered him. But, you should remember him and going to communion you proclaim his death until he comes. I have already shown you all of this and yet you continue. How long will you go on perverting the straight ways of the Lord?

10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

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.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Nick M]

But bread was His body.

Here is the context and the conversation.

30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ”
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

You are just like them. They were blinded, and you are too.

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

 

[7djengo7]

But bread was His body. Jesus said so. Prima facie. Those are the words He used.

These are the words He used: "This is my body". Notice He did not say "Bread is my body", and He did not say "This bread is my body".

By His pronoun "this" was Jesus referring to His body? Yes or No?

If Yes, then Jesus is stating a tautology: "[My body] is my body". Is that what you think Jesus was doing by saying "This is my body": teaching that His body was/is His body?

we all just take Him here "wooden literally"

By your pronoun "Him", are you referring to a headless, armless, legless morsel of baked foodstuff?

When Jesus says "This is my body", by His phrase "my body" do you take Him to be referring to a headless, armless, handless, legless, footless morsel of baked flour foodstuff? Because that's what every one of Romanism's "consecrated hosts" is: a headless, armless, handless, legless, footless morsel of baked flour foodstuff.

Jesus' body is (among other things) a head, a brain, a heart, eyes, a mouth, teeth, a nose, a tongue, vocal chords, ears, skin, muscle, a skeletal system, arms, legs, hands, fingers, toes, feet, etc. Whereas, Romanism's "consecrated host" is none of those things. So, no: your "consecrated host" is not Jesus' body, and your asinine insistence on asserting the glaring falsehood that something without any of those body parts is nevertheless "somehow" Jesus' body is you showing that you do not take Jesus' phrase "my body" literally.

 

[Idolater]

These are the words He used: "This is my body". Notice He did not say "Bread is my body", and He did not say "This bread is my body".

By His pronoun "this" was Jesus referring to His body? Yes or No?

If Yes, then Jesus is stating a tautology: "[My body] is my body". Is that what you think Jesus was doing by saying "This is my body": teaching that His body was/is His body?


By your pronoun "Him", are you referring to a headless, armless, legless morsel of baked foodstuff?

When Jesus says "This is my body", by His phrase "my body" do you take Him to be referring to a headless, armless, handless, legless, footless morsel of baked flour foodstuff? Because that's what every one of Romanism's "consecrated hosts" is: a headless, armless, handless, legless, footless morsel of baked flour foodstuff.

Jesus' body is (among other things) a head, a brain, a heart, eyes, a mouth, teeth, a nose, a tongue, vocal chords, ears, skin, muscle, a skeletal system, arms, legs, hands, fingers, toes, feet, etc. Whereas, Romanism's "consecrated host" is none of those things. So, no: your "consecrated host" is not Jesus' body, and your asinine insistence on asserting the glaring falsehood that something without any of those body parts is nevertheless "somehow" Jesus' body is you showing that you do not take Jesus' phrase "my body" literally.

It's like, you insist on reading the words through a mirror or something. Just read them directly off the page instead. Here are the four times He's quoted. Grin.

$$ 1Co 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
$$ 1Co 11:24
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.

$$ Lu 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

$$ Mr 14:22
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

$$ Mt 26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's like, you insist on reading the words through a mirror or something. Just read them directly off the page instead. Here are the four times He's quoted. Grin.

$$ 1Co 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
$$ 1Co 11:24
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.

$$ Lu 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

$$ Mr 14:22
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

$$ Mt 26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

It's like, you insist on reading the words through a crack in the floorboards, or something.

Just read the context of those verses, directly off the pages instead.

It says nothing about Christ being bread, or bread being Christ, or one becoming the other. Christ is simply using bread, and eating it, for that matter, and wine, drinking it, for that matter, as an analogy for Himself, because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[Idolater]

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2017/03/07/what-is-a-memory-palace-jpm-orig.cnn

"How to remember almost anything"

A decent presentation, but it's an old trick, just so you know.

How did Jesus want us to remember Him?

$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
$$ 1Co 11:25
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.
$$ 1Co 11:26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

What specifically did He want us to remember about Him? Well the interesting thing is that at the Last Supper, it hadn't happened yet. His body had not yet been "broken" for us, not yet. But even then, before the cross, He said, "This is My body." Even before the crucifixion. But He said, "This is My body" and, "This do in remembrance of Me". In remembrance of something that hadn't happened yet.

Think.

 

[Nick M]

How did Jesus want us to remember Him?

You finally got it right. You are to boast in the cross. And we proclaim is death until he returns. That doesn't mean he wasn't resurrected. And there is no way to the Father but through the death of the Son. Someone had to pay the fine, and he did.

 

[7djengo7]

But bread was His body.

How could bread be His body if the "eucharistic element", upon "consecration", stopped being bread and started being His body, instead of bread? The usual Romanist shtick is to deny that the "eucharistic element" is bread once it has been "consecrated" by Rome's "priest", despite the fact that it looks, tastes, etc. exactly like bread. Which is why they always have to resort to all this mumbo jumbo like:

Transubstantiation means changing substance, and substance means changing essence plus accidents, the essence of anything is what that thing is simpliciter, and its accidents are all the other things about it. So the bread and chalice are changed to God. The essence changes, but its accidents or attributes do not. Its predicates. iow how it looks, tastes, feels, behaves in a laboratory, etc., does not change.

But by saying bread was Christ's body, you're temporarily abandoning that shtick and contradicting the claim that the bread-looking thing ceased to be bread. To say "bread was His body" is to say that something was simultaneously both bread and His body. If "bread was His body," then how would a conversion from being bread to being no longer bread, but being His body instead of bread, be necessary?


In John 13:18, Jesus says: He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Notice that Jesus does not say "He that eateth my body with me..."

Wouldn't it have been egregiously wrong and disgusting for one or more of Jesus' audience to try to take a bite out of, say, His hand, or His arm -- His body -- as He handed out morsels of bread to them? I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you won't hesitate to answer that question in the affirmative. Yet, you want to say that what He was handing out to them to eat weren't really morsels of bread, but instead, were somehow pieces of His body? The fact that you would make a distiction, admitting it would be sick and evil to bite into Jesus' hand, yet saying it would be perfectly fine to eat a morsel of bread He had dispensed from that same, holy hand, shows that you don't really think the morsels of bread He was handing out were His body.

 

[7djengo7]

In John 13:18, Jesus says: He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

And why did Judas lift up his heel against Christ?

Why, clearly out of anger, malcontentment and childish jealousy over the fact that, unlike himself, the other eleven all received middle slices, and he didn't want to eat all that crust!

 

[7djengo7]

Well the interesting thing is that at the Last Supper, it hadn't happened yet. His body had not yet been "broken" for us, not yet.

Great point! His body had not yet been broken, but the bread had already been broken, or was being broken when He said

this is my body, which is broken for you

So the bread was not His body. To admit His body had not been broken yet is to admit the broken bread was not His body.

But He said, "This is My body" and, "This do in remembrance of Me". In remembrance of something that hadn't happened yet.

Do what in remembrance of Him? Break bread? Do Rome's "priests" even break bread in their "Eucharist"? From what I've seen, they use their fingers to ever-so-delicately extract a wafer out of their "ciborium" and gently convey it onto the tongue of the "communicant", and it doesn't look like any breaking is involved in that. I mean, it looks rather like they're doing all they can to avoid breaking the "host".

It really doesn't look like Rome's "priests" do much of anything in their "Mass" resembling what Jesus did, or what He said to do in remembrance of Him, at the Last Supper.

 

[Nick M]

Exactly where they were supposed to be.

 

[Nick M]

The only thing under the Vatican is dirt and bedrock. Except for when they build upon a Tell. I learned that term from Joel Kramer's youtube presentations.

 

[Nick M]

But by saying bread was Christ's body, you're temporarily abandoning that shtick and contradicting the claim that the bread-looking thing ceased to be bread. To say "bread was His body" is to say that something was simultaneously both bread and His body. If "bread was His body," then how would a conversion from being bread to being no longer bread, but being His body instead of bread, be necessary?

Many Catholics have an emotional response much like "Pentecostals".