Discussion in 'Apologetics Forum: Ask questions about Christ' started by Roses, Feb 2, 2006.

  1. Aineo

    Aineo Active Member

    Your response concerning food exposes the fact that in prior communications we have discussed blood since I did not bring up eating anything strangled. Sacrifices in pagan temples were slaughtered not strangled, so what you have done is add to what Paul wrote in the Scriptures you referenced. Tell me Rome, have you ever slaughtered an animal and prepared the carcass for food? Depending on the situation the first thing that is done is the animal is bled and then gutted or gutted and then bled, therefore the meat sold in temples was mostly blood free. Now unless you like your steaks blood rare, cooking meat removes the blood.

    BTW, my uncle was a cattle rancher and my family are ardent hunters. So, I have helped in slaughtering cattle and wild game.

    And before you try to deny that Catholics bow before images there are a plethora of pictures of Catholics bowing before images of Mary.

    I see you avoided the queen of heaven:
  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Aieno Wrote:
    What you keep failing to understand is that the laws of the Old Covenant have been superseded by the laws of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:14; Heb 7:18; 8:7; 10:9)

    the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).

    let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Col 2:16).

    The early Church fathers were unanimous in their view that the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Many of these Fathers lived during apostolic times, for example Ignatius and Polycarp.

    "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53)

    And above all that, we drink the blood of Christ because He Himself commanded us to do so.

    Aieno Wrote:
    Bowing does not always mean worship. It can mean veneration and honour i.e bowing to the Queen of England.

    (Gen 27:29; 33:3-7; 37:10; 41:43; 42:6; 43:26; 47:31; 48:12; 49:8; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam 20:41; 24:8; 25:23, 41; 28:14; 2 Sam 9:8; 14:22, 33; 18:21; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:15, 23, 31, 47, 53; 2:19; 2 Kings 2:15; 4:37; 1 Chr 21:21; Est 3:2; Isa 60:14).

    Bowing and using religious images IN worship are not the same issue, you haven't refuted that. I have already explained this to you, stop making me go round in circles with you.

    Aieno Wrote:
    I avioded it because we have spoken about it before years ago, why bring it back up? Anyway the "Queen of Heaven" refers to the Assyro-Babylonian Isshtar, goddess of fertility not the Mary mother of Jesus.
  3. Aineo

    Aineo Active Member

    :D Why do you choose to ignore that I am not depending solely on the OT law. Acts 15 was a church council, Paul quotes the OT in Romans 11 to show that it was a remnant that did not bow the knee to images that God preserved for Himself. Bowing to the Queen of England is comparing apples and oranges. Blood is not food. We have discussed John 6 more than once and what you have chosen to ignore are verses 60-71. Your appeal to the church fathers is begging the question since not all your ECF's support your contention. Have you read St. Ignacius of Antioch?

    So far all you have done is appeal to decisions that were hotly debated in church councils that resulted in divisions among the 5 Patriarchies.
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Aieno Wrote:

    All I have done is quote the bible to show you that the Catholic faith can be defended using the bible, basic history and simple logic.
  5. Aineo

    Aineo Active Member

    Read Romans 11
    Also, I explained that Jesus taught the multitude with parables, which he explained privately to his disciples.
    You continue to take parables as literal and reject the plain language explanation of those parables, which is nothing more than proof texting.

    I removed your quote from St. Ignatius because you did not link to the source.
  6. Aineo

    Aineo Active Member

    The word "eucharist" is from the Greek "eucharistia", which means "thanksgiving".
    The following is a summary of two posts I made on another board where I discussed Catholicism with Catholics who told me St. Ignatius of Antioch taught the elements of communion become the actual body of blood of Jesus, which is termed transubstantiation. The blue portions are notes made by either the translator who is a Catholic .
    The Following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
    What should be abundantly clear from the above to anyone who is not blinded by tradition is that 1st century Christians did not accept Catholicism's view of the eucharist and that Catholicism in order to justify their stance do not translate the ECF's but transliterate the Greek word for thanksgiving in order to force their traditions on their own ECF's.
  7. Aineo

    Aineo Active Member

    I have shown you that by using Scripture in context and with history your tradition is not based on apostolic teachings oral or written. Now, let's appeal to logic.

    Alchemy is a myth, and what Catholicism teaches is an esoteric form of spiritual alchemy where plain bread and wine become human flesh after they are consecrated. When Jesus instituted the Lord Supper the bread and wine were bread and wine that did not become the real live flesh and blood of the man holding the elements. The first converts to Christianity were Jews who would have found transubstantiation a repugnant concept based on the foundation of all that Jesus taught and stood for as well as idolatry since what Catholicism teaches is derived from Mithraism.

    Now Rome, it is your turn to post a real defense that addresses Scripture, history, and logic.

Share This Page