Catholics believe that Mary is “the Mother of God,” a co-mediator with Jesus, herself sinless and virgin born. They even believe that she ascended to heaven. What do the Scriptures say?
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: God sent His son into the world, that through Him we might be saved. Jesus has been given the highest name in the universe because He humbled himself to come in form of servant, died a criminal’s death, and has been highly exalted. May all the honor and glory go to Him and praise be to the Father!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is no question that there are many issues that divide Catholic and Protestant, and that we deeply differ on the position of Mary. Let us then exalt and preach Jesus: crucified, risen, exalted, and coming again!
Special Offer, This Week Only!
Vol. 1 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus
PLUS Holy Desperation[CD] for ONLY $20!
INCLUDES FREE SHIPPING!
Callto take advantage of this offer, or ORDER ONLINE!
Other Resources:
How to be Led by the Spirit [mp3 CD]: Clear and practical teaching on how you can learn to recognize and respond to the Spirit’s leading. Includes two special messages entitled “The Purpose of the Gifts of the Spirit” and “Fanning into Flame the Gift of God.”
It’s Time to Rock the Boat [MP3 series]: Our compromised message has produced a compromised generation of believers, and only a return to the New Testament gospel, preached in the power of the Spirit, can turn the tide. This course will open your eyes and set your hearts ablaze for Jesus!
Foundations of Prayer [mp3 series]: Essential listening for all those who desire to make prayer a priority in their lives. These messages will challenge and motivate you.
Certainly Mary is the mother of God, if by “God” we are talking about Jesus.
rockypath1,
Messiah says that He is not going to change the law.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Daniel says someone will…the antimessiah.
Da 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
So those that think that Messiah changed YHWH’s appointed times and laws are really thinking like the antimessiah and not like the real Messiah said to think. The one that thought to change YHWH’s law is against Messiah. By you own admission it was the Catholic church.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
It is quite interesting that you did not list one passage in post 247 that says that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Something that was an absolute commandment that comes right along with not committing murder being surely changed should get more press than that. Don’t you think?
One thing that we know from any study of scripture is that narrative is not normative. There are people that were together on some first days of the week, but nothing showing any command to do so. The only command in the NT about the first day of the week is to lay up in our homes according as we have been prospered and has nothing to do with meeting together. And it is also interesting that this command was during a very special time of year…from Passover till Shavout/Pentecost…during the count to Shavout, which is very ironically the only time that the Greek phrase that we translate “first day of the week” is mentioned.
Strange that the only “first days of the week” that the early believers were ever told about, or that we were told about, are during the counting of weeks during the interval that YHWH tells us to count toward a specific feast of YHWH. What are the odds of that? Strange that no other reference is given about the “first day of the week” except as it pertains to this 7 week period. Strange until we realize that it is said differently in the Hebrew scriptures. It is called “the morrow after the Sabbath.” And strange that this phrase is only used in scripture to denote also the count of Shavuot/Pentecost. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
Messiah is resurrected and ascends to His Father on the morrow after the Sabbath on the first day of the count of the feast of Shavuot. He is the firstfruits offering (firstfruits from the dead as Paul says). The vast majority of the passages are simply relating the fact that this is the day that Messiah fulfilled this moed/appointment/feast of YHWH. Other than these and the one about storing produce that we mentioned earlier, there is only one that is left.
Ac 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
This one tells us that Paul had just kept the feast of unleavened bread, which is when the count toward Shavuot is begun, and it is now just a few days later he is gathering with some disciples. He is meeting with them as the “first day of the week” commences just after sundown. We would call it Saturday night. He is going to depart on the next morning, which by all logic is Sunday morning. So he will not be meeting on Sunday morning with the disciples. So much for Sunday Sabbath! Paul will be setting out on a journey and those with him will be carrying supplies and loading a ship and sailing on Sunday morning.
But there is one more passage that might give you some hope that the early believers met on Sundays.
Jn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
This could be Sunday or it could be Monday, depending on what after 8 days means. If it is Sunday, it is still during the count toward Shavuot…the second “first day of the week” during the count. The interesting thing is that nothing is said about anybody meeting for the sake of some kind of new Sabbath, but it was common for Jewish people to get together just after Sabbath ended…still is. It was common for them to get together to count the weeks to Shavuot…still is. Shavuot is literally “Weeks.”
The other funny thing is that the Greek does not really say “first day of the week.” It says “one of sabbaths” or possibly “one of weeks.” The word “day” is not in there. Sounds more like a count to me toward Shavuot than making note of what day of the week it is. And it is interesting that “eight days later” is used here in John instead of “mia ton sabbaton”/”first day of the week.” But I guess the number of days later would be readily known and remembered since they were obeying YHWH’s commandment to count…toward the feast of weeks/Shavuot/Pentecost.
The point of the term that is translated “first day of the week” being used in scripture is to show us that Messiah fulfilled the Scriptural firstfruits offering on the exact appointment of YHWH and not to let us know what day of the week it was…although we would know that if we knew that firstfruits had always been on the morrow after the Sabbath. The other places that the phrase is used tells us that it is during the count and not that Sunday has any special meaning.
“William Cave wrote “… the Sabbath or ‘Saturday’ (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius and Clemens’s Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, tells us that they assembled on Saturdays… to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath.”[15]
15. Cave, Primitive Christianity: or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel. 1840, revised edition by H. Cary. Oxford, London, pp. 84–85).”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
Sunday is not the new Sabbath. It wasn’t for the early believers either. This tradition of men is an obvious instance of the antimessiah system “thinking to change times and laws” instead of obeying Messiah when he said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” He came and fulfilled firstfuits on the exact day. He did not make Sunday holy. He and His disciples continued to remember to keep YHWH’s Sabbath holy. They did not destroy YHWH’s law by defiling it or changing it.
PS: “The Lord’s day” is not a day of the week. If it was, it would be the seventh day, since Messiah said that He was the lord of the Sabbath. The phrase that John uses in Revelation is referring to the time frame that he had a vision of…”the day of the LORD.” He sees all the judgements and darkness of “the day of the Lord” and thus says, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.”
Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Zep 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
The term “day of the Lord” came to be used in reference to Sunday via pagan worship of Mithra and thus absorbed into Catholic terminology that has always adopted pagan practices.
Sabbath or Sunday?
Catholics do not worship on the Sabbath, which according to Jewish law is the last day of the week (Saturday), when God rested from all the work he had done in creation (Gen. 2:2-3).
Catholics worship on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (Sunday, the eighth day); the day when God said “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3); the day when Christ rose from the dead; the day when the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles (Day of Pentecost). The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the ‘eighth day,’ Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day” (CCC 2191).
The early Church did not move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Instead “The Sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday, which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ” (CCC 2190). Sunday is the day Catholics are bound to keep, not Saturday.
We see evidence of this in Scripture:
On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight (Acts 20:7).
On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come (1 Cor. 16:2).
Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or Sabbath (Col. 2:16).
The Catechism also says:
By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ’s Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord’s Day or Sunday. The day of Christ’s Resurrection is both the first day of the week, the memorial of the first day of creation, and the “eighth day,” on which Christ after his “rest” on the great Sabbath inaugurates the “day that the Lord has made,” the “day that knows no evening.” (CCC 1166)
and
Justyn Martyr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Day
By the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr wrote in his apologies about the cessation of Sabbath observance and the celebration of the first (or eighth) day of the week (not as a day of rest, but as a day for gathering to worship): “We all gather on the day of the sun” (τῇ τοῦ ῾Ηλίου λεγομένη ἡμέρᾳ, recalling both the creation of light and the resurrection).[19] He argued that Sabbath was not kept before Moses, and was only instituted as a sign to Israel and a temporary measure because of Israel’s sinfulness,[20] no longer needed after Christ came without sin
To accuse the Catholic Church of being pagan is to destroy the credibility of ALL the Christian faith. Move on Bo.
Rockypath1,
Once again you can show no scripture that actually proves what the Catholic Church says and can only find someone at least 100 years removed from the original early church to back up your doctrine. There is no connection between the real church that was begun by Messiah and what became the Catholic church. It is a stretch of enormous proportions to think that the apostles taught us to celebrate the “pascal mystery” every Sunday. Passover and unleavened bread was celebrated once a year by them…on the 14th day of the first Biblical month. The most ancient tradition from the apostles was:
“A Question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.”
-Writings of Eusebius, Book 5, Chapter 23, Verse 1
“Chapter 24
1 But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them.351 He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:352
2 “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
3 He fell asleep at Ephesus.
4 And Polycarp353 in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, 354 bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
5 Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris355 who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, 356 or Melito, 357 the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?
6 All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.358 And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people359 put away the leaven.
7 I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’” 360″
-Writings of Eusebius, Book 5, Chapter 24, Verses 1-7
The church of Rome had already apostatized from this true way of keeping Passover that John the apostle and Polycarp had taught the churches under their charge. Justin Martyr was a product of this early apostasy.
Bo,
At the end of the day the apostolic early Church being led by the Holy Spirit and the Chair of Peter, guided the Church to ALL truth. How could it be otherwise.
Praise God the Father then for his caring attention to the Church Jesus founded in his suffering and death. And praise God for giving us the Holy Spirit to ensure ALL truth for all generations. He would not leave us orphans so that imposters would come into the house and deceive all believers.
This is the clearest validation of the early Apostolic Church. And was given to those of goodwill and obedience in each generation.
And by the way please do not quote anyone like Eusebius who was writing in the first half of the 4th century. His writing were even farther removed than those I quoted and therefor are utterly useless. 😉
PS. Look to Ignatius of Antioch who was guided by John the Apostle in his life for and understanding of what John actually thought and what the apostolic Church believed.
Why do you chose wilfully to follow an apostate belief Bo. Obedience, obedience, obedience.
Roy Schoeman a very interesting Jewish convert to Catholic Christianity.
He experienced a Road to Damascus conversion and had no choice but to enter the Catholic Church.
Roy doesn’t like the word “conversion” or convert to Catholicism as he regards Catholicism as the fulfilment of the Judaism.
Regardless there is a lot of very interesting general understanding of Jews and their role in salvation that is good, even if you sneer at the Catholic Church. ;0
Here is a series by Roy in 14 parts.
Good man, good sense of humour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVEusKkvSbM
rockypath1,
Obedience, yes…to what the apostles actually wrote and not to fabricated traditions and surmisings coming from a corrupt worship system.
Eusebius was a Catholic that compiled known history. Polycarp was John’s disciple. Polycarp and John and virtually the whole of the eastern church celebrated Passover as per the scriptures and Rome did not at the time of Polycrates writing. Rome was already apostate by mid second century.
In the words of Peter, whom Polycrates quoted, “We ought to obey YHWH rather than men.” Roman Catholicism is the word of men. The scripture is the word of YHWH. Any tradition that does not align with every word of YHWH is apostasy. Your church is full of these sorts of things. It is obvious to anyone that has not been swallowed by it or has not swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
rockypath1,
I do not sneer at the Catholic Church. I grieve over those who have been deceived by it.
Rockypath1,
I listened carefully to the link that you provided.
It is not a conversion like the apostle Paul’s. It is an obvious example of demonic visions/dreams where Satan masquerades as an angel of light…disguised as the “blessed virgin Mary.”
In the first 10 minutes, he says that he had totally abandoned his Jewish faith and was an atheist. He was disillusioned. He says that he was “Stupidly selfish.” He was seeking consolation while walking on a beach when he was embraced by total love and total security when he had his experience. The nondescript god that spoke to him wouldn’t reveal his name. Hmmmm? That does not sound like the apostle Paul’s experience. He says that he was willing to receive whoever it was that was revealing himself to him as long as it was not “Christ.” Hmmmm?
In the next 7 minutes we find out that one year to the day later that he was a dream but his memory was as if he was awake and that he was in the presense of the most beautiful young woman that I could ever imagine he just knew it was Mary. He was overwhelmed by her stature and glory and he wanted to throw himself on his knees to honor her somehow. The next morning He knew it was Christ on the beach. H tells us that “God veiled his sin from him” and that the message was not to repent or he would have turned back.
Mary said that she would answer any questions he had. He asked, “What is your favorite prayer to you?” He says that she was coy and said, “I love all prayers to me.” He elaborated about how Mary told him a prayer in Portuguese but that he did not understand the language. But later he found a portugese woman and he asked her to recite prayers and he recognized the first few syllables of the prayer that Mary told him.
He also asked her, “What is this business about the holy spirit? She looked up with an expression melting with love and said, “He is his gaze.”
He began attending a protestant church and asked the pastor, “What about the blessed virgin Mary?” When the pastor answered with far less respect than he knew was do her, he left and started to spend all of his free time hanging around Marian shrines just to commune with Mary. Whenever he was around a mass while he was at these shrines he had a desire to receive communion. He said that the “blessed virgin Mary” was the perfect way to draw him to the catholic church because he was “not ready for Jesus.” He says that he got a lot of consolation at these Marian shrines and a stong sense of her presence.
The above is a perfect example of spiritual deception. It is not a true Christian conversion. It may be a true Catholic conversion to false idol/satanic worship though. Messiah preached repentance from the start and declared His name openly. Mary is never the one He uses to reveal himself in visions and dreams. Not speaking his language to tell this man something and being coy is just seductive Babylonian mystery religion.
Your link proves all the more why no true-hearted and well-meaning protestant would ever fall for Catholic idolatry. As much good will as any Bible believer has, he can never accept this as a true conversion or true faith in Messiah.
Let’s try that again with a few corrections:
Rockypath1,
I listened carefully to the link that you provided.
It is not a conversion like the Apostle Paul’s. It is an obvious example of demonic visions/dreams where Satan masquerades as an angel of light…disguised as the “blessed virgin Mary.”
In the first 10 minutes, this man says that he had totally abandoned his Jewish faith and was an atheist, that he was disillusioned, and that he was “Stupidly selfish.” He was seeking consolation while walking on a beach when he was embraced by total love and total security when he had his experience. The nondescript god that spoke to him wouldn’t reveal his name. Hmmmm? That does not sound like the Apostle Paul’s experience. This man says that he was willing to receive whoever it was that was revealing himself to him as long as it was not “Christ.” Hmmmm?
In the next 7 minutes we find out that one year to the day later that he was dreaming but his memory was as if he was awake and that he was in the presence of the most beautiful young woman that he could ever imagine…he just knew it was Mary. He was overwhelmed by her stature and glory and he wanted to throw himself on his knees to honor her somehow. The next morning He knew it was Christ on the beach. He tells us that “God veiled his sin from him” and that the message was not to repent or he would have turned back.
Mary said that she would answer any questions he had. He asked, “What is your favorite prayer to you?” He says that she was coy and said, “I love all prayers to me.” He elaborated about how Mary told him a prayer in Portuguese but that he did not understand the language. But later he found a Portuguese woman and he asked her to recite prayers and he recognized the first few syllables of the prayer that Mary told him.
Later in the video we find out that he also asked Mary, “What is this business about the holy spirit? She looked up with an expression melting with love and said, “He is his gaze.” I guess I would expect a little better theology than that from someone in the know.
He began attending a protestant church and asked the pastor, “What about the blessed virgin Mary?” When the pastor answered with “far less respect than he knew was do her,” he left and started to spend all of his free time hanging around Marian shrines just to commune with Mary. Whenever he was around a mass while he was at these shrines he had a desire to receive communion. He said that the “blessed virgin Mary” was the perfect way to draw him to the Catholic Church because he was “not ready for Jesus.” He says that he got a lot of consolation at these Marian shrines and a strong sense of her presence.
The above is a perfect example of spiritual deception. It is not a true Christian conversion. It may be a true Catholic conversion to false idol/satanic worship though. We know that Messiah preached repentance from the start and declared His name openly. Mary is never the one He uses to reveal himself in visions and dreams. Not speaking this man’s language to tell him something and being coy is just seductive Babylonian mystery religion.
Your link proves all the more reason why no true-hearted and well-meaning protestant would ever fall for this Catholic idolatry. As much good will as any Bible believer has, he can never accept this as a true conversion or true faith in Messiah.
Coming from an orthodox Jewish background, Catholicism seems like a completely foreign religion.
#catholicismphobia
Good to hear from you Eliyahu.
Eliyahu,
It is a foreign religion. It comes from Babylon and Egypt and India and everywhere but from the apostles…or the Bible.
rockypath1,
I am no fan of John MacArthur , but he hits many nails on the head in this presentation. Please do me the favor listening to the first 25 minutes of this presentation and 48:00-1:04:00 and 1:14 to the end…if you dare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuJ077vOXTI
Everyone else,
Please listen to the link above and the link that rockypath1 posted. It will be obvious where the truth lies.
Shalom
Bo,
I have listened to MacArthur ad nauseum and have often commented on his sites. Many Catholic and protestant are repulsed by his falseness, his lack of integrity in just about anything he says An extraordinary arrogance and a virtually complete lack of honor.
Compare him to a man like Michael Brown and you will see what I mean. This calls for discernment.
Him (MacArthur) you will accept but not Roy Shoeman who is obviously a man of integrity.
I am not in the least shocked or surprised at assessment of Shoeman’s conversion given your understanding of the apostolic Church and the movement of the Holy Spirit within it. At some level, I am actually pleased that you listened as I was beginning to think you never took note of a single thing anyone offered.
The link thought I gave was more to do with his pulling apart of the role of the Jews in salvation and throughout history. He offers some very interesting perspectives that offer insights outside the denominational struggle. Even for those who will not accept ALL that was given by Jesus and the apostles.
He pulls apart (or attempts to) the mystery of Nazism (false satanic religion of) and its inception by satan as a mock Church. Hitler’s apparentt initiation into the occult. He offers documents which show the Nazi plan for the elimination of the church.
Its stuff I have never come across before.
Eliyahu
That is an odd thing to hear. I have heard Jews say just the opposite about Catholic faith and liturgical services and similarities with Judaism. Go figure.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=80167
Eliyahu
As for Bo’s interpretation of Catholicism. It is what is called fake history. And is infantile at best. Satanic at its worst in terms of attempted mischief.
The pagan roots stuff is well – stupid. It is meant only to destroy the apostolic foundations in order to give credence to a man-made religion. This disobedience is the way it has always been and I suppose always will be.
The most obvious solution to the truth-riddle is this:
1)Would God have His son suffer and die upon the cross,
2) Authorize his apostles to convey the truth to the Church He established,
3) Send his Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth,
ONLY TO HAVE IT BECOME TOTALLY PAGAN AND CORRUPT with a completely false notion of John 6, breaking of bread and the Real Presence of Jesus therein.
Wow! what a lazy and ineffectual God we have.
He truly is a God that does NOT keep his promises then.
And we are to believe that our GOD allows a lot of relatively unwholesome reformers to become the foundation stone of multiple sects and splinters. So much confusion. So much bickering. So many thousands of new and false doctrines and paths.
Sorry but my faith in his providence is more faithful that this.
Do you not see the lack of faith in such an interpretation as Bo’s?
Do you not see the interpretation is solely to take the legs out from the apostolic Eucharistic Church and allow for any one of the myriad protestant churches to gain a foothold in credibility.
Bo denies the Eucharist, but secular and Church (protestant and catholic) history cannot deny it and in the end those who jump into this flagrant corruption of apostolic early Church Eucharistic denial show their instability and spiral down into more grave instability.
Yes Eucharistic understanding is the main key to understanding the truth of the Catholic faith. It is clearly part of the apostolic tradition and this is why Bo hates and attacks it so.
It does not allow him to believe what he wants to believe. It does Not allow him to behave how he wants to behave.
Sorry about that Bo.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
pagan BS
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/paganism-prophecies-and-propaganda
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/the-pope-and-the-mithras-cult
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/the-pope-and-the-mithras-cult-part-ii
rockypath1,
No need to apologize insincerely. Your posts show how brainwashed you are and how hateful you are toward those that simply show facts proving Catholicism to be a false religion. I simply believe what the scripture says instead of ridiculous man-made mystery cult inventions that came from pagan sources. There is no connection between the apostles and the pope or real presence or Maryolatry or indulgences or purgatory or the great wealth and pomp. NO CONNECTION!
The very things that you say your god would not do, Messiah prophesied would happen. The apostles warned that it would happen. And it happened. And the Catholic Church is the continuing embodiment of it happening. The real assembly of Messiah is not a Church system. It is a small remnant of people that have found the straight gate and the narrow way and follow the Lamb where ever He leads. That hear His voice and obey His Father. The Catholic Church has a different father and a different Messiah. It sits as a queen and will soon be destroyed.
Mt 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Contrary to your logic, the kingdom of heaven becomes corrupted. It is full of Satan’s emissaries. It grows into a mutant plant that houses fouls/demons. The whole thing becomes leavened with sin and false doctrine. And YHWH calls all that are truly His to come out of this monstrosity…this whore.
The gates of hades will not prevail against the real assembly. It cannot hold the true believers in the grave. Hell already has those that follow the false system in shackles even while they live and they do not even know it. Messiah will return for His small, true, simple, spotless bride and resurrect them to sit by His side. And the huge whore will be judged for living deliciously off of its poor patrons and the kings of the earth. And heaven and the prophets and apostles will rejoice over her destruction.
And just so you know, the mother of harlots has daughters. All those little church systems that have been born out of this great whore that continue to keep her feasts and her sabbaths will fall with her. But there are some people of good will and that have honest hearts that will heed the call to come out of Babylon before it is too late. It has been happening from the beginning. And Rome and her daughters have persecuted the real bride the whole time. The wicked step sisters have looked on the real Cinderella with disdain, but the real prince will come for His true love and the others will go out unto weeping and gnashing of teeth…and some, for a time, might think that they are in purgatory, but they will be sadly mistaken.
Your religion is mostly about “The blessed virgin Mary” and bread and wine that mysteriously turn into flesh and blood. Magic and fertility cult worship will not go over very well in the end. The testimony of your famous Jew that became a Catholic tells us all we need to know to run as fast as we can from your idolatrous witchcraft laden system that piles up treasures while the world starves. It sits a queen for only a few more years.
There is time for you to come to your senses and leave before it is too late. Maybe you should listen to the link I provided and think long and hard about what is said instead of heaping insults on a man that has guts enough to speak what he thinks is true. I listed to your link and detailed much of its contents and showed the outrageousness of it. Do a point by point critique of MacArthur’s presentation showing how he is wrong or how he lies…if you are a Catholic of good will.
Sorry Bo. Eucarhistic apostolic truth edifies John 6 and Real Presence Eucharistic faith proclaims the Catholic faith.
The tares and wheat show the Church – the Body of Christ. The sinner, the luke, the indifferent the heretics, the apostates and the believers.
Your eisigesis knows no bounds. Can you actually make this dance to your protestant anti-Catholic bigotry? How so?
The mustard seed shows a seed grown into an almost adult form – the Kingdom of God. The Body of Christ. The Catholic Church.
Your religion is all about you Bo. It is an elevation of your hopes and desires to a false faith rather than what the apostles taught.
Hey Bo,
It strikes me that as Jerusalem is really the best candidate for the Whore you and your NEW form of Jewish-Protestantism may be the best fit into what the whore is or will be. Perhaps you and your spiritual offspring will restart the sacrifice of animals as a final abomination against the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus our Lord.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
When the Whore falls we read, “‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth” (Rev 18:20 and 24).
So, the Whore could not be the Catholic Church because 1) it did not exist to kill the old testament prophets and
2) No blood is on the Churches hand with respect to any Apostle.
Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27-28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10). Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century and BEFORE.
WHO KILLED THE PROPHETS
Indeed, Jesus himself could not be any clearer in Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!
Rev 17:5 “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus….”
Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
Rev 18:10 “Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.”
Rev 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her.’
SO WHO IS BABYLON – THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES
ANSWER
REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY “where also their lord was crucified – JERUSALEM
NOT ROME!
####################### ###################
SEVEN MOUNTAINS??????????
Revelation 17:9
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Jerusalem is built on 7 mounts.
One source, http://jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/rev-13.html, lists the seven, and explains a bit more of why some authors list different mountains, and includes a map: 1.) Mount Gared; 2.) Mount Goath; 3.) Mount Acra; 4.) Mount Bezetha; 5.) Mount Moriah; 6.) Mount Ophel; 7.) Mount Zion.
The seven mountains upon which Jerusalem was built are (according to wikipedia): Scopus, Nob, Olivet, “Mount of Corruption” or “Mount of Offence”, “Mount Zion”, the “Ophel Mount” and the new “Mount Zion.”
Saint Paul and Saint Peter and all those other missionaries who were martyred took the apostolic faith throughout Asia and southern Europe. These areas where the Orthodox and Catholic Churches stretched across a great breadth developed and grew and carried with them all that was believed from the apostles – especially Real Presence Eucharistic faith.
Real Presence Eucharistic faith was planted with in the early Church and like a mustard seed the Eucharistic early Church grew into a large organized adult Church.
There was never any contention in the earliest Church about the reality of the Real Presence Eucharistic celebration for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.
And it should be condemned for achieving this? How so. Logic dictates it MUST have come from the apostles. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was given. Praise God.
And the Catholic Church (early Church) should be condemned for keeping the written and oral traditions (bible and sacred teachings) that were handed down? How so? How so? No rational thought here. What delusion is going on then?
Not even Dr Brown above seems capable of understanding just how those especially sacred things would be preserved and painstakingly handed down. They were considered just that critical.
This is not acceptable scholarship and smacks of disobedience in order to con-form the faith to ones own desires rather than what was conveyed by the apostles from Jesus.
Eucharistic early Church faith edifies John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.
God have mercy on those following this great delusion of denying the early faith that was given – especially those of such goodwill as Dr Brown.
rockypath1,
Who killed Paul and Peter? Rome. Who ruled Jerusalem when John penned Revelation? Rome.
Does Rome set on seven hills/mountians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome
And just to be clear, all false religions are included in Babylon the whore. The Catholic Church is just the obvious overarching system that fits in every aspect. Judaism and Jewish apostasy to Baal worship in the past is certainly included in the whore along with Hinduism and Islam and the New Age movement. And the Catholic Church has killed so many NT prophets and preachers and witnesses of Messiah that it is ludicrous to deny the obvious.
And my reading of Matthew 13 is only too obvious to the unbiased reader. The kingdom of heaven becomes corrupted and leavened with sin and false doctrine and grows way beyond the bounds of nature. The only system that claims to be the kingdom of heaven that fits this description is Roman Catholicism and its offshoots.
Peter was in Rome when he penned this:
1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter
“The question now meets us – Is “Babylon” to be taken in a mystic sense, as a cryptograph for Rome, or literally? Eusebius, and ancient writers generally, understand it of Rome. Eusebius is commonly understood to claim for this view the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria (as has been stated in the Introduction, p. 9.). But the historian’s words (‘Hist. Eccl.,’ 1. 15. 2) seem to claim that authority only for the connection of St. Peter with St. Mark’s Gospel; the identification of Babylon with Rome seems to be mentioned only as a common opinion in the time of Eusebius. It is said that there is no trace of the existence of a Christian Church at the Chaldean Babylon, and no proof, apart from this passage, that St. Peter was ever there.”- Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-13.htm
Who is Babylon? Rome.
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY “where also their lord was crucified – JERUSALEM”
You have purposely misquoted and misconstrued this passage. You have even mislabeled it.
Re 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
The great city where Messiah was killed is called Sodom and Egypt…not Babylon. Rome is called Babylon.
That should have been:
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“SO WHO IS BABYLON – THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES
ANSWER
REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY “where also their lord was crucified – JERUSALEM
NOT ROME!”
You have purposely misquoted and misconstrued this passage. You have even mislabeled it.
Re 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
The great city where Messiah was killed is called Sodom and Egypt…not Babylon. Rome is called Babylon.
Bo,
Revelation 11:8
“and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.”
Sorry for being sloppy. However (LOL) I did not purposely misquote anything but did miss the last quotation mark after “crucified” and dropped a digit in the chapter.
Regardless, The “Great City” mentioned in Revelation 17:18 was previously identified in Rev 11:8 and is referred to the “great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.”
Therefore the place where Jesus was crucified was NOT Rome but Jerusalem.
You are going to have to go deeper here Bo.
rockypath1,
I guess everyone but you thinks that there is more than one “great city.” Babylon-Rome is a great city and Jerusalem-Sodom is a great city. Pretty easy, huh? Here a few more great cities:
Ge 10:12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
Jos 10:2 That they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty.
Jon 1:2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
Bo,
So by your definition of false religions yours is also part of Babylon the Whore. Very generous of you for sure.
And the part where the Catholic Church is responsible for the blood of the prophets and apostles. Now it becomes more figurative so you can include the Catholic Church. Of course.
The Catholic Church was inspired enough by the Holy Spirit to give you a pure and holy bible but not holy and pure enough to discern the truth of the Eucharist. And certainly it was wicked enough to be the whore of Babylon. What a joke.
You know by your reasoning you MUST eliminate the bible altogether or at least go back and select your own canon. Or do you NOT want to take upon yourself what the early Church (Catholic) took upon itself. AUTHORITY. From Jesus our LORD.
Through a process of intense discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, the successors of the Apostles determined in the fourth century which of the writings of their day were Sacred Tradition—the “Word of God”—and which were not inspired writings of the Church.
This was confirmed by the Bishops at the councils of Carthage and affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus.
early Church authority
early Church inspiration
early Church faith
early Church = Catholic Church = the Church Jesus gave us all. Even you Bo are under its wing whether you acknowledge it or not.
Let me see some more backflips. The more gyrations and arm-waving you do, the more you can distract away from Eucharistic truth which totally destroys ALL of your obfuscations.
Nothing you can do to alter this but dredge-up more make belief history and eisegesis. Go for it.
Bo,
Only one of those Great Cities was identified just prior to Rev 17 and 18. Go figure.
Eucharist actually MEANS New Testament
Question: What does the phrase “New Testament.” MEAN?
Answer: The second and smaller part of the Bible that discusses the revelation of
Jesus. Right? NOT SO FAST
To the first Christians—and to Jesus—the term had a different and larger meaning.
To the first Christians, the word we translate as “testament” was supremely important. In Greek it is “diatheke.” In Hebrew it is “b’rith.” St. Jerome, in the fourth century, rendered it in Latin as “testamentum.” In English, it has been translated inconsistently, sometimes as “testament” and sometimes as “covenant.”
For the Jews of Jesus’ time, the word described not a book, but a relationship—a family relationship, usually sealed (and renewed) by an oath, a sacrifice, and a meal.
We know of only one instance when Jesus used the phrase we translate as “New Testament,” and he used it NOT to describe a book, but the Mass! St. Paul provides the earliest historical record of the event, perhaps twenty years after the Last Supper: “In the same way [Jesus] also [took] the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” (1 Cor 11:25; ).
So, according to the New Testament itself, the Eucharist is the New Testament.
Long before there was a New Testament (bible), Jesus had given the chalice as the New Testament in his blood (see Lk 22:20).
The Mass is the meal and the sacrifice that renews the kaine diatheke—the New Testament—and that is our family bond with God. In Holy Communion with Jesus Christ, God’s eternal Son, we are God’s children now: “the children share in blood and flesh” (Heb 2:14).
We turn to the moment when Jesus instituted the Eucharist: when he took bread and pronounced it to be his body, then took a cup and pronounced it to be “the new covenant in his blood.” We turn to the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the famous Bread of Life Discourse: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (Jn 6:51, 53).
The institution of the sacrament is recounted four times: three times in the so-called synoptic Gospels (Mt 26, Mk 14, and Lk 22) and once in St. Paul’s letters (1 Cor 11:25).
“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread” (1 Cor 11:23).
The Acts of the Apostles conveys the worship of the earliest Christians in a compact statement: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42).
The Church in every succeeding age observed those four elements in one action: the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
On the road to Emmaus. Jesus walked with them, but they did not recognize him. Then, “at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight . . . he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Lk 24:30-35). HERE The Eucharist, instituted on the night he was betrayed, was the Savior’s first order of business when he rose from the dead.
The document we call the New Testament presents the rite we call the New Testament as something central to Christian belief and life.
paraphrasesd from Hahn
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catechesis/catechetical-sunday/eucharist/upload/catsun-2011-doc-hahn.pdf
Why would any Jew eat and drink human/God blood. Disgusting. A complete prohibition to Jews of all time.
Since the claim is that you drink blood, does it taste like blood or do you believe that Jesus’ blood taste like wine.
No Jew would feel comfortable drinking blood, if this is the case, that Jesus wants us to drink blood, this is proof that Jesus is leading people away from Torah commandments. Hence, the Torah prophecied Messiah has never came. No Jewish messiah would command people to drink blood. Prove it scientifically that blood can taste like wine or wine turns into blood. What a gross thought.
So at Passover Jesus turned the wine into blood magically and forced his disciples to drink it, gross.
There should be DNA evidence to support wine turning into blood, does it taste like blood, yuck.
What does the bread taste like, undercooked chicken (does the flesh of Jesus taste like bread), all my rabbis would tear the clothes their wearing if tricked into drinking magic blood. It sounds like only demons would be behind magic like this.
What a trick the disciples sat down for a meal with wine and get tricked into a Torah prohibition of drinking blood and eating human meat.
It sounds like the Muslim religion that teaches that you have eternal life eating Muhammad’s urine and poop.
Gross.
What’s worse to a Jew, eating Muhammed’s poop and urine or drinking Jesus’ blood, it is worse to violate the teachings of Moses to drink human blood.
If Catholic teaching is true, I will never again associate with Jesus, or his magic blood. He would be a madman magician empowered by demonic anti Moses power. I will never drink blood or eat human meat, I am Torah observant, but how could a Jewish Messiah not even be Torah observant and force people to violate Torah Holy Spirit inspired teachings.
But don’t stop there, Miriam who called Jesus a madman, never sinned, I guess a false prophet confession that Jesus is crazy is not a violation of bearing false witness.
So was sinless Mary correct in calling Jesus crazy, she never lied or bore false witness.
Wait, lets pray to her to intercede for us. A woman who is dead and called Jesus a madman.
#scaredofreligion #scaredofprotestantism #scaredofcatholicism
Eliyahu,
Hi! Long time, no hear!
Are you really afraid of those three things with the hash tags? Why protestantism? Or religion even?
Here’s what Paul said about the church in Galatia in his letter: “I am afraid of you,…” (Gal 4:11)
I believe we are to consider so very deeply the meaning of the Lord’s suffering, that we would digest it fully, as much as we can, doing this for the health of our whole self, and our spiritual well being.
This is one of those things that we would do well to keep in the center of, and not go into one ditch or the other because of.
Yes, I believe Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God to us in every way, coming in nothing short of that.
The leaders of protestantism scare me. Greg Boyd teaches God does not know the future. R. C. Sproul teaches that Jews are replaced in the Bible to mean Christians and Catholics. Benny Hinn spends a million dollars in Beverly Hills for his church suit outfit. Toronto blessings church pushed me over calling it slain in the spirit while people in the audience were barking like dogs (dog barking in the Spirit). At one service, at a church in Minnesota, the pastor’s wife put a dog collar on the pastor and he got on all fours as he barked while she led him around the aisles. John Piper teaches that Israel is the land of the Christians. Creflo ODollar teaches that you get rich tithing to him. Most churches teach tithing as a law of Christ distorting ancient Israel tithing laws. John Macarthur teaches that God does not heal despite evidence to the contrary in Judaism and Jewish homes. Now the evangelical world is taken over by Christian and LGBT theology. Kids being molested by their religious leaders within and including protestant, catholic and Jewish religions. Islam murdering Christians and crucifying them. The world wide hatred of Jews and Israelis including indoctrination by seminaries and within Bible Colleges I have attended. God is love theology goes to the point of saying that there is no eternal punishment any more. Billy Graham was not sure if Jesus is the only way to eternal life plus the free masons claiming him as their own. The overwhelming importance of money and how to get more of it, sometimes becoming the focal point of most sermons, especially on TV. Protestantism has no unity like Catholicism has, it has many divisions, schisms all doing their own independent desire. Most historical churches reject the speaking of tongues despite Paul quoting from the Hebrew Bible as predicting it.
I am just scared of religion.
Humans run it.
Dr Brown and Walid Shoebat I agree with the most within religion.
Thanks for that, Eliyahu.
I agree that all the things you wrote are aberrations and a departure from the truth of Christianity. Doctrinal error is blatant these days! I, too, think a lot of it must start at the university and Bible college level. Error begets error.
Eliyahu
Lets get our definitions correct at the very least.
Only one body of Christ exists. Catholics, in essence were/are the original Christians. I am happy to allow the use of the word Christians to all who acknowledge the basic tenets of the original Christian faith as given by the apostles and held by the early Church.
Eliyahu
I am not clearly discerning if you hold fast to Judaism or some form of messianic Christianity. Oh well….
You said,
“No Jew would feel comfortable drinking blood, if this is the case, that Jesus wants us to drink blood, this is proof that Jesus is leading people away from Torah commandments. Hence, the Torah prophesied Messiah has never came. No Jewish messiah would command people to drink blood”
I take it though that you are aware of John 6 and understand that this is the point where many of His disciples rejected him (John 6:66). The reality of the Real Presence in the bread and wine to come was the entire point of the discourse.
Hardly a metaphorical reality as given by Jesus and corroborated by Jesus in His words and in great part elucidated by the mere fact that so many rejected Him at this moment and He did not correct their alleged confused understanding. Because they were NOT confused. They understood correctly what he was saying
JOHN 6:53-56
“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”
To me it is grossly absurd (for any Christian) to deny the Catholic Church as it reflects in total the early Church practice, which is clearly Real Presence Eucharistic. For Jews to hold to their faith, in part because of this, I get that. It is problematic. So dismiss it as you will. I understand the difficulty but as Jesus explained about the change.
“It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
He is saying this is a spiritual reality which is essentially beyond our understanding.
Life is in the Blood right. To me this is a fulfilment of the reality. And God can accomplish this. Life really is in the blood of Jesus in many ways. Metaphorical. By accepting his blood on the Cross and finally by eating the lamb. Yuk right. But transcendent.
He goes on to say if you don’t get this what are you going to say when you see me levitating into heaven. (His Ascension.)
Well he was clearly:
1)the son of God
2) a mad man.
3) or demonically driven.
All of what he said and did make 2) an absurdity.
No 3 then? Do not the prophecies of Daniel point to the messiah coming at the time of Jesus.
Peter and the apostles were totally bewildered at the whole John 6 “my body is real food…” thing but they hung in there and that is why the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protester
“””””””””””””””””””””
The Eucharist is prefigured in the Passover?
In order to complete the Passover mystery and save their firstborn it was imperative for the Hebrews to eat the lamb. The salvation of the first born would only be fulfilled if they completed this action and so they ate the lamb. The culmination of the Passover.
Is this not foreshadowing of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb.
Is Abraham with Isaiah (carrying the wood of his own sacrifice) also not a MOST clear foreshadowing of God’s only begotten son being sacrificed?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
There are lot of Eucharistic miracles out there Eliyahu. Miracles still exist today and are very prominent in the Catholic world.
Since the beginning of our New Covenant faith we have had holy believers spiritually nourished on the bread wine that have induced incorruption of the body. Who has ever heard of such a thing. And yet it is relatively common. And I have seen them recently in Italy. Satan has that power? Not a chance.
Lets reason it out Eliyahu.
The reason the temple was destroyed was unequivocally because of the Jewish rejection (in general) of the Messiah. We know that God punished the Jews by exile or slaughter because they turned away. Was this not was always the observed result of turning away from God.
I recently read Eusebius on the destruction of Jerusalem around that time. A most heart-rending event of unimaginable proportions. Up to a million Jews dying, mostly by starvation.
And the temple destroyed! Within one generation and only an outer ring wall remaining. What more of a sign do you want then.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Roy Schoeman (New York Jew as he describes himself offers some remarkable insight on the role of Jews today in salvation history and in their ongoing salvific role.
It is fascinating stuff on many angles.
Here is part 1 of 14 parts. They get more interesting as they go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVEusKkvSbM&feature=youtu.be
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“Roy Schoeman (New York Jew as he describes himself offers some remarkable insight on the role of Jews today in salvation history and in their ongoing salvific role.
It is fascinating stuff on many angles.
Here is part 1 of 14 parts. They get more interesting as they go.”
I listened intently to the first part. It is interesting. It shows Catholicism for what it is. A magic mystery cult. It offers a false salvation. It has a false savior named “Blessed virgin Mary.”
In the video the god that revealed himself/herself would not reveal his name. The virgin would not answer him in his own language, but in Portuguese. Repentance was not preached. The whole thing was occultic.
Go ahead and watch the first video for yourselves. No one could be deceived by it except those with no spiritual discernment that have been blinded by years of listening to a false spirit guide or brainwashing in a mystery religion.
Here is my brief summary of the video:
I listened carefully to the link that you provided.
It is not a conversion like the Apostle Paul’s. It is an obvious example of demonic visions/dreams where Satan masquerades as an angel of light…disguised as the “blessed virgin Mary.”
In the first 10 minutes, this man says that he had totally abandoned his Jewish faith and was an atheist, that he was disillusioned, and that he was “Stupidly selfish.” He was seeking consolation while walking on a beach when he was embraced by total love and total security when he had his experience. The nondescript god that spoke to him wouldn’t reveal his name. Hmmmm? That does not sound like the Apostle Paul’s experience. This man says that he was willing to receive whoever it was that was revealing himself to him as long as it was not “Christ.” Hmmmm?
In the next 7 minutes we find out that one year to the day later that he was dreaming but his memory was as if he was awake and that he was in the presence of the most beautiful young woman that he could ever imagine…he just knew it was Mary. He was overwhelmed by her stature and glory and he wanted to throw himself on his knees to honor her somehow. The next morning He knew it was Christ on the beach. He tells us that “God veiled his sin from him” and that the message was not to repent or he would have turned back.
Mary said that she would answer any questions he had. He asked, “What is your favorite prayer to you?” He says that she was coy and said, “I love all prayers to me.” He elaborated about how Mary told him a prayer in Portuguese but that he did not understand the language. But later he found a Portuguese woman and he asked her to recite prayers and he recognized the first few syllables of the prayer that Mary told him.
Later in the video we find out that he also asked Mary, “What is this business about the holy spirit? She looked up with an expression melting with love and said, “He is his gaze.” I guess I would expect a little better theology than that from someone in the know.
He began attending a protestant church and asked the pastor, “What about the blessed virgin Mary?” When the pastor answered with “far less respect than he knew was do her,” he left and started to spend all of his free time hanging around Marian shrines just to commune with Mary. Whenever he was around a mass while he was at these shrines he had a desire to receive communion. He said that the “blessed virgin Mary” was the perfect way to draw him to the Catholic Church because he was “not ready for Jesus.” He says that he got a lot of consolation at these Marian shrines and a strong sense of her presence.
The above is a perfect example of spiritual deception. It is not a true Christian conversion. It may be a true Catholic conversion to false idol/satanic worship though. We know that Messiah preached repentance from the start and declared His name openly. Mary is never the one He uses to reveal himself in visions and dreams. Not speaking this man’s language to tell him something and being coy is just seductive Babylonian mystery religion.
Your link proves all the more reason why no true-hearted and well-meaning protestant would ever fall for this Catholic idolatry. As much good will as any Bible believer has, he can never accept this as a true conversion or true faith in Messiah.
He calls Miriam the “Queen of the angels”.
I know no ancient Jewish sources/midrashim to point to this notion.
He says he talked with Miriam. Is she dead? If so this is another Torah prohibition for Jews to talk to dead people. King Saul did it and it displeased God.
Catholics need to prove that Miriam never died like the Jewish Elijah, this is the only way to avoid necromancy.
How did Miriam become queen of the angels? Where in the Hebrew Bible does it predict any of this.
Skitzofrenia is very real. Everyone is a prophet now a days, hearing voices and seeing visions.
The problem is once again, contact with dead people is Torah violation not just for Jews but for Gentiles too, a universal law on all mankind. When did God change His mind, and start sending dead people to earth to talk to living people. This is serious for a Jew. Did the Pope rule necromancy with Mary as God’s will now?
Eliyahu,
Is necromancy only wrong for Jews, or is it wrong gentiles also?
Ro 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
The Catholic faith is opposed to Biblical faith. It is anti-Messiah.
Bo,
Eucharistic early Church faith is of the messiah and taught by the apostles. And that is why ALL the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.
There is no evidence that will deny this.
All of Europe developed along this line from the apostolic mission.
The authentic early Church IS the Catholic Church.
More later. Going to the beach 😉
rockypath1,
You have produced no proof of real presence belief until possibly the middle of the 2nd century. The early church from its beginning has not been such. The pagan aberration of mystical cannibalism and magic crept in and deceived many. The real assembly of Messiah has always stood against these things. The Catholic Church has always been apostate and full of paganism and occultic practices.
You wrote on another thread:
“Was He such an incompetent teacher that He would not make sure that this teaching was understood properly[?]”
He was such a great teacher that He could spell out exactly what He meant and still puprposely keep people from understanding Him. And then clarify to His disciples with sayings like “the flesh profiteth nothing.”
Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
And you only quoted half of this verse:
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
“The flesh profiteth nothing” is in direct reference to Messiah’s discourse on eating His flesh. He explained Himself privately to His closest disciples and most of the others left, precisely because they were left with the misunderstanding that they would have to become cannibals. “Eating His flesh” is gaining spiritual nourishment from hearing His words and putting them into practice.
Joh 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
The people in Messiah’s day that heard Him say to eat His flesh and drink His blood had the good sense to not follow someone that would teach this literally. The disciples had the good sense enough to continue to follow Him once He told them that it was a metaphor. They followed Him because he had the words of life, not because His physical flesh and blood would be literal food.
But what of the church system that thinks that He was being literal and still claims to follow Him? What of the people that go along with this? It is not good sense. It is paganism. It is mystery religion…mystery Babylon. It teaches a false Messiah…a cannibal…a pagan entity.
You wrote on another thread:
“Paul, the didache, Ignatius, Justyn martyr and all the many others should be enough.”
Paul does not teach real presence, as I have demonstrated. The didache does not teach it. Ignatius wrote in the second century and it is in doubt what he teaches about it. Justyn Martyr is late second century.
Some reading our dialogue would probably like to read this:
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.
Luke 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.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.
What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.
Paul is a second witness.
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:
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.
We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.
This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.
Bo
I thought you understood that Jesus did not go through his entire discourse on the Real Presence to come the communion bread and wine and then say
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
or
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. [New KJV]
or
63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [NRSV]
or
3 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[a] and life. NIV
or
This is a straight forward warning that it is a spiritual reality that this will be accomplished (through the Holy Spirit and that they should NOT think carnally (of the flesh).
(John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
Bo
The next 5 full paragraphs deal with this obfuscation of John 6:63 completely. Stop this silly tactic as if it has legitimacy. It does NOT. Its poor scholarship and supports Real Presence Eucharistic believe.
OR WHY DID THE APOSTLES BRING THIS TEACHING TO THE ENTIRE EARLY CHURCH?
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying?
Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
or
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. [New KJV]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PAUL CONFIRMS IT
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious?
Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
source: Christ in the Eucharist (CA)
Ignatius
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Justin Martyr
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen
In a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
CONCLUSION
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
bO,
Immediately upon His long and persevering assertion that He is ACTUALLY present in the bread and wine Jesus says “But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him.” – (referring to Judas
How significant that Jesus would bring up Judas into the whole context of His disciples walk away from Him – betraying him.
And again he refers to Judas and betrayal in John 6: 70 “one of you is a devil”
Not believing in True Presence = JUDAS
Even renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
It is just a fact that will not be subverted by poor scholarship, fake history or backward fundamentalist interpretations of scripture.
rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.
Luke 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.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.
What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.
Paul is a second witness.
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:
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.
We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.
This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.
As a believer in Jesus partakes of the bread in the holy communion service, it becomes to him the body of the Lord which was given for his salvation.
It is not just ordinary bread and only bread. Though it is in fact physical bread by it’s nature, to him it is the Lord’s body which was broken for him, for that is his focus. That is his perspective, and it is real.
The wine also (or juice if that is what is served) becomes to him a reminder of the Lord’s blood which was shed for the remission of sins.
It’s the Lord’s atonement that is his focus.
Just as a man thinks in his heart, so is he…. This becomes to him what he believes it to be, in a memorial of the Lord’s sacrifice, according to the word of Christ and the teaching of the scripture.
Bo,
The fundamentalist ass-backward proof you give for John 6:63 has been dismantled completely just above. Maybe you should read that.
THE SACRAFICE OF THE MASS
ONLY A “REMEMBRANCE”? REALLY?
The linking of the sacrifice of the Mass with Jesus’ eternal sacrifice is captured by the Greek word anamnesis, which is usually translated as “remembrance.” The use of this Greek word conveys a meaning that goes far beyond the sense of the English “remembering.” To remember something is to merely recall the past event in ones mind. However, anamnesis means that the past event itself is made present here and now.
“Christians are to enact the Lord’s Supper in a recollection of Jesus which has the form of active re-presentation as the action of Jesus and his disciples is repeated.” This idea was deeply imbedded in the consciousness of the Hebrew people. When they celebrated the Passover they understood that they shared in that original redemptive act that is not made present to them.
Anamnesis is a sacrificial term that is used frequently in the Septuagint. In Leviticus 24:7 it is the translation for the Hebrew ‘azkarah, which was the memorial offering. It indicates a perpetual remembrance of the covenant. Anamnesis is also used in Numbers 10:10 for a “memorial sacrifice.”
If the Holy Spirit wanted to convey the idea of a “reminder” that was not a “memorial sacrifice,” he would have inspired St. Luke and St. Paul to use the Greek word mnemosunon, which is the correct term to describe a nonsacrificial memorial as is used in Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9, and Acts 10:4. However, the inspired use of anamnesis clearly conveys the reality of a memorial offering, that is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice of Jesus made present again in time.
-Jim Seghers: http://www.totustuus.com/TheSacrificeOfTheMass.pdf