there is no cannibal in the bible, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR OUR SALVATION. We must truly eat his flash and drink his blood, truly accept his sacrifice. transubstantiation is not biblical
I still believe it to be symbolic, but putting that aside, I'm not understanding why Catholic mass is so centered around the Eucharist. It seems to be the main part. Why is it made to be so important? And what does eating Christ's body and drinking His blood do for us anyway? Does it make us a better person? Does it forgive our sins? If Christ already died for us, why do we need to keep "eating him" again?
The words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves.
If you want to crucify the Son of God afresh with every Mass, with the Priest's filthy hands holding the chalice high in idolatrous worship, feel free.
The interesting thing is that Martin Luther definitely still believed in the RP after his split. Funny how some of the Protestants who have made an idol of him claim to hate the RP.
@ChristianEastern Yeah, they love ML more than the Blessed Virgin or the saints or prophets, they put him up there with Moses and Abraham. Also, I heard that Luther could not stand the term "Lutheran". Lutheranism is more close to the Catholic Faith then most fundimentalists churches now a days. And Luther never believed in symbolic baptism or all that crap.
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,
the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17,18).
I used to be catholic.. Let me say that it is more than this re sacrifice that is so disrespectful but the beleif that you have to go through the pope to understand the scrip
zkeuker88 is a coward because he does not receive comments. he is afraid he will be proven wrong. By the way where was his christian church throughout the ages? Most of the people who call themselves "christians" did not worship until recently. they picked up a Bible and established their own church. The Bible that every christian of all denominations is an edited version of what Catholics use.
Anyway, the catholic only give the body to eat, but no drink. The drink is the blood of Jesus. We save by the blood not by body alone. SO Catholic Still not doing it full. It shall have a better way to do it.
I think that's my main issue with Zkueker. He states his Calvinist interpretation of Scripture and then considers the case closed. He is not open to debate.
Jesus himself said: Do this as a memorial of me. (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24, JB) At Luke 22:19, Kx and Dy read: Do this for a commemoration of me. NAB reads: Do this as a remembrance of me. Jesus did not say that what he did at the Last Supper was a sacrifice of himself or that his disciples were to renew his sacrifice.
According to The Documents of Vatican II: At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic (Sacrifice) of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross . . . —(New York, 1966), edited by W. M. Abbott, S.J., p. 154.
do you really think god will send all to hell who don't believe on this eucharist ? I think as along as you believe in Chirst is all that matters why need to read more into it
@ltrox1 Look at it this way if all you ever know is vanilla ice cream that fine it tastes good but unfortunately you are missing out on the awesomeness of chocolate ice cream with hot fudge! =)
You crushed him. Absolutely crushed him. While I can tolerate those Protestants who will respectfully argue about the real presence, I cannot stand when they blaspheme the body and blood of God by calling the real presence doctrine "paganism".
thanks, btw. there was never any debate. Zach just read off of an article by matt slick and then refused to respond to this rebuttle. But it jsut shows that zach is not interested in the truth
So let's assume your interpretation of this doctrine is correct. Since he ascended, he's not here for us to cannibalize and even if he were, there wouldn't be enough to go around anyway.
Glen, you are definitely in truth, but PLEASE don't forget 2 Timothy 2: 22-26. I don't want you to see you become bitter towards people who were taught to be arrogant in their ignorance.
From 9:40 to 10:15, you state that the Catholic Church does not claim to re-sacrifice Christ again at the Mass.
If that is the case, why, at the beginning of the consecration sequence in the Roman Catholic Mass, does the entire congregation say "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands" (ie at the hands of the priest celebrating the Mass)?
That recitation certainly seems to be a re-sacrifice, in rather black & white language.
the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Because at the hands of the priest it becomes the same sacrifice at Calvary. but it is not a re-sacrifice, or a new sacrifice. its the same sacrifice.
OK. Could you elaborate on this or suggest a source where I could read more about the doctrine? To say that it's the same sacrifice as the one at Calvary is pretty confusing; perhaps a lengthier explanation would help.
"Protestants interpret the Bible litterally. which is NOT the way it was written. everything that happened in the Bible did not LITTERALLY happen. Jesus used parables, expresions, common language etc. to get his point across." - from a Catholic, jfulbright90 or something like that.
my only greviance though glenn is that you say that in john 6:53 that in the greek the word used is Alethes and im starting to learn greek to read the original greek gospels and I dont find that word in the original greek all I find in that verse are the words Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν which only mean Amen Amen not alethes? this is no disrespect man im just saying what ive found perhaps im looking at the wrong thing
I believe that Alethes is the english rendering of the greek word that you just mentioned. My point was that every time that word is used it always means something real.
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54)
Some think that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically.
The video makes a hilarious and unsubstantiated statement. It claims that "phago" can have a symbolic meaning, but not the more concrete verb "trogo". Why is that so? Can you provide any reference to an NT scholar explaining how it is impossible for "trogo" to carry a symbolic meaning?
Yes, why not? There is nothing in the context suggesting that Jesus is discussing the Eucharist. In fact, a Eucharistic interpretation is clearly eisegesis. To eat and drink his body and blood is to receive his sacrifice by faith. Using figurative speech he prepares his disciples for his sacrificial death. In the gospel of John it is stressed over and over again that we are saved by faith in Christ.
no it is not eiegesis. Especially when you read it in conjucntion with the last supper, it is obviously talking about the eucharist. Also take into account that the apostle john does not give us an institution narrative as the other 3 gospel writers do. John 6, is in the place of this
Read John 6. Many walked away from the hard teaching. Do not be deceived by the sweet but Satanic lie that it is purely symbolic and not at all literal. Many in the Baptist and Calvinist camps have fallen for this humanistic lie.
OTC, well done. Especially in contrasting the "vine" metaphor vs. the literalism of John 6. As you say the disciples very response illustrates their understanding
Look, the originators who formed the seperate churches did used to be Catholic. Who would deny that? But to say things as if we puposely formed different sects for God knows what reason is absolulty idiotic, groundless, and goes against centuries of history.
I was not implying that the Catholic Church purposely created many different sects. All I was saying is that those sects are daughters of the Catholic Church, even if they want nothing to do with her.
See thats the problem. What exactly do you mean when you say "daughters of the Catholic Church"? If your not implying the latter whilst using this kind of termonology people get the wrong idea about your accusations.
The Catholic Church claims that it was her that gave us the Bible, correct? The Bible is the blood of the church (in a sense)and this same blood runs through the veins of all Christian sects. It is what ties all Christians to the Mother Church.
We claim to have preserved the Old Testement and scribed the New Testement and then in turn preserved the entire text yes. However when it comes to rewritten texts posing itself as the true word of God such as the KJV the only relation is thing that Protestants decided NOT to remove or change. The fact they excluded the Deterocanonical canon is excuse enough to say that they are not of our allifiation when it comes to eclesiastical matters.
OTC,one important reason why Zach has not responded to this video is that CARM has only one essay on Transubstantiation...and he already read it (read: plagerized it) word-for-word in his first video on the topic. Therefore, he doesn't have anything else written by his hero, Matt Slick, to plagerize in response to this video. What he needs is for Slick to respond to your video...which Zach can then plagerize and make a new video from. Truly sad.
And more over, how could it have been a literal sacrifice when he had not died for out sins at that point. Jesus also said that if our hands caused us to sin then we should cut them off but we don't do that so wouldn't that seem like a metaphor? Or aka a symbolism. Jesus was teh last sacrifice so that we would never have to do it again so to say that He is being sacrificed again and again, is directly against what the bible teaches. Catholics tend to go more by the Catechism .
If you really thought that the bread and wine was literally the blood and flash of Jesus and still partook then those are guilty of literal cannibalism. It WAS in fact symbolic. He spoke of blood and flesh as He poured the wine and broke the bread to represent the blood shed and broken flesh. You can look in Leviticus 17 to get the scriptures on cannibalism. Jesus often spoke in parables so that only believers would be able to understand him.
The doctrine of private revelation of God's truth has bigger holes in it than the Grand Canyon. It goes against entire passages of the Bible when it obviously instructs us to have some sort of final mediator when it comes to set doctrines of faith and morals because the author who wrote it and the early Christians who read it fully understood that without it the Church would fall into a chaos of arguments and disagreements. Hey, that sounds slightly familiar doesn't it?
To add, there have been disputes and arguments within the Church before and all were settled within the Coucils and Eclesiasticals so all could reference the offical teaching of the Church. It is only when men started to disregard the mediation of the Church is when other sects were created. There has been division ever since the very begining. IE. Judas, and the Gnostics in the 5th century. But Church teaching held fast against forgin theology and kept itself pure.
Yes, the Catholic Church forged a doctrine that has remained unchanged from the start, but this is only because changing a set doctrine afterwards would destroy the Churches credibility. The Qur'ran has changed, but that doesn't mean the book wasn't tainted to begin with.
And yet still you provide no proof. And to add fundememtalists adhere to the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine way after the 5th century, however you just stated that we have adhered to a doctrine since then and remained as such to keep our reputation It's a messy buisness to mix funky and empty accusations. So tell me oh wise one, when was the Catholic Church founded and by whom?
1.) Even a man whom speaks wisdom can also speak foolishnes. I am not wise, but i am no fool.
2.) I merely stated that the Catholic Church has a strong motive for keeping set doctrines intact throughout her life. God does not change, so neither should his Church. Yet, apparently his laws change as the Catholic Church admits that she has changed God's day of rest from the last day; after his work had been complete; to the first day. She sits and rests while God is hard at work.
Founded by the devil. Yes thats a good ground to stand on when you perhaps talking to a 10 year old. Every Church was founded by someone. Lutheranism: Martin Luther, Calvinism: John Calvin, Presbetyrians: John Knox and it goes on and on and on. I ask again. Who founded the Catholic Church?
You also still haven't provided any proof of your claims. ONLY ACCUSATIONS.
All Prophets of God are merely pens while God is the writer. This goes the same for any Church that is established. Either God founded a Church through a man, or the Devil did. It is as simple as that. The proof is in what you Church teaches. She has placed idols like Mary, the Eucharist, Saints and Jesus infront of God. She has her church members engage in cannabilism. She has changed God's Holy day.....
... She has given men the titles that belong to God like Father and Holy Father. She assigns her children GOD parents at baptism. She allows her members to engage in pagan holidays like Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving. She allows her members to tell lies to their children. They say there is a santa clause and there is an easter bunny, only to fess up to them at an older age. The RCC does not say a thing because they WANT you to sin. The more you sin the farther you are from God.
As usual we get the mainstream kind of excuses. I'm guessing by the "holy day, holidays" part you are a seventh day adventist?
All of your problems with the Church have been refuted already countless times. In fact they are even here on YouTube. Diving into conspiracy won't get you anywhere in this world dude. Before I go on, are you a Seventh day adventist?
2.) Those "mainstream excuses" have never been refuted, you cannot refute the truth. You can only give excuses as to why the Catholics observes these abominations.
3.) Do you know how I came to these conclusions? I read the Bible with an open mind and without preformed ideas on what is True and what is False. I read the Bible with the only mediator I need, The Most High God. Not a man, but God whom is the revealer of all.
"I agree that one final mediator is needed, but he has not made himself known"- You
So which is it? Your personal interpretations of Scripute which is somehow authoritative truth, or nothing has shown itself yet? Picking and choosing what you believe thats all you guys do. The Bible isn't a menu sir and thowing away the passages that tell you specificly that you cannot determine or intperprate scripture without the help of a seperate authority is maddness.
1.) I don't pick and choose, I look at both sides of the coin and meditate on it. Then when I have come to my conclusion I move onto the next subject. God is wise and there is wisdom behind each of his rules, and I do not accept everything that I read in the Bible unless it is logical and is right (weither I like it or not).
2.) My interprutation is mediated by the Most High God.
See this is what I'm talking about because I'm starting to see a pattern in your logic here sir. You constructed this idea that you by yourself can interprate Scripture better than a Church that first of all preserved it and second of all wrote it. So God just comes down from heaven and teaches you how to read the Bible? Thats not even what the Bible says! What you are still describing is private interpratation.
1.) So are you telling me that if I sincerally wanted to know the truth, so that I could walk the path of righteousness and help lead others down that path, God wouldn't guide me? Is God not capable of doing such a thing?
2.) That Church was established by men and men are not to be trusted when it comes to things of God.
The relationship between the Church and the Prophets is irrelevant. Jesus was a Jew yet he spoke out against the priests who were responsible for protecting, preserving, and revealing what was written on the Holy scriptures. Those priests failed just like the current ones do. The situation with your Church is no different than the Church that Moses started, both "sees" are blind to spiritual truths. Truth is undeniable yet many deny what your church has to say.
Moses started Judiasm yet very few understood what the scriptures said until Jesus came along. Jesus is no dead and the truth of what he said died with him. And FYI Jesus was a man who revealed the truths that his and our FATHER (GOD) told him.
1.)Your god was a man sent from God. He never was God, let alone the Most High God. He is a part of God like an engine is a part of a car. You do not call the engine "car", you call the engine "engine".
2.)If your Church labels me a heretic, then I must be doing alot right in my life.
3.)If your Christ is Jesus, then you can call me Anti-Christ all you like, I take no offense.
4.)Giving a man the title God or Most High God IS blasphemy... end of story.
5.)maybe I went to far in saying that Jesus is dead. Just a bad choice of words. What I was trying to say is that when Jesus he took the truth of what he said with him.
"For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace."
Is Christ Jesus really the "most high God" or is he submissive to the "most high God" (God the Father)? I would like to hear your explanation on the matter.
Matt 21:42, "Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"
Here we see God expected the wicked Pharisees to be able to read scripture and holds them personally accountable...if they were expected to see what God plainly wrote I'm pretty sure the rest of us are. Besides does God not give His sheep the ability to understand His word?
3.) Yes, one final mediator (witness) is needed to reveal the error of our present state, however he has not appeared so until then I will just have to trust in the Most High God to bring me truth and keep me out of error.
4.) This mediator is only needed to correct those whom are in error, he does not need to correct those whom are on the right path.
In this day in age one man's truth is another man's falsehood and the wheel just keeps on spinning. And only the intersession of the Holy Spirit can seperate those who adhere to truth and those who don't. Once must look at origins and context to realize what is and what is not truth. And they indeed have been refuted sir. One just needs to know where to look. But how can one defend his faith when he says, "I don't believe that." when the only retort is, "Well I think your lying."?
Origin doesn't have a bearing on the complete thruthfulness of a subject when that origin is man. Only through a rightous mindset can one begin to gain wisdom and understanding, and be able to differ between truth and lies.
1.)God has warned us about the blind leading the blind. You cannot see unless you open your eyes and look around.
2.)If the Catholic Church was the One True Church then why has it been braking a part since it first came into existance? Is God the Author of confusion? How come so many read the same book but conclude different things? How can so many be confused about what the Bible says? Shouldn't all who read a book that is written by an all knowing and wise God come to the same conclusions?
Ahh that does bring up a question doesn't it? The reason people come up with different interpreations is 1. They tossed out the idea of a mediator to help them understand the Scriptures aka the Church. 2. They decided to REWRITE the Bible aka the KJV, NIV, ANIV or the Jehova's wittness's bible the NWT.
The Catholic Church isn't broken within itself. The other churches claim a seperate exsisence from us, thereofe they include us with no eclesiastical authority over them.
1.)There are different "RITES", but they are not different sects all together. All the Catholic rites proclaim that same doctrines and beliefs. A Western Catholic beleives the same thing as an Eastern Catholic. The only thing thats differnt is the culture and how that culture affected the procedure of how the Mass was conducted. But the faith is exactly the same.
2.)They most certainly our not our offspring. You make sound as if we condoned their seperation as a mother choses to birth a child. Protestant churches claim seperate eclesiastical authority and are therefore outside of the Catholic Church. They are not our "offspring" ,but more along the lines of "dissenters". Since they hold to different doctrines as us they are not of our true holy body becasuse the adhere to what we believe as false.
Does a child always do as the parent wishes? No, the child has it own wants and needs and eventually wants to be its own person. These daughters were born from the very book that the Catholic Church put together. They are their Mother's offspring, they just wish to live their own lives, seperate from the control of their mother.
They are spwan of disidence not of the Bible. They REWORTE the Scriptures. They do not read the exact same words we do as infalliable doctrine. Since this is the case, they are not under our wing and our charge as having to take responsibility of their doctrines.
A mediator has not made itslef known? That is absolutly untrue and makes no sence. The Bible itself tells us to the Church to settle matters in an authoritative finality. Matt.18:15-18. The state of confusion lies not at the falut of God, but at the fault of Man and ultimately Satan and all his lies. Does this mean God's truth is not longer present, no because Jesus promised that the Gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against his Church.
So what your implying is that every person must construct their own verion of the truth in their own mind with out any help from a seperate source, person, or Church. I'm sorry but Scripture strongly disagrees. It warns against private interpretation. And if everyone has the capasity to just magicaly have an apifiny and know all Gods truth then why does every person who follws that teaching and calim to know the "truth" have different ideas of the truth!?
I do not claim to know the truth, I only believe what I have is true. I do believe that what I ocnsider to be true may be false, which is why I debate. I just want people to recognize the fact that they are unknowing just like me.
Zkueker88 is an extremely hateful individual and he's a bigot of colossal proportions.
His false idea that one is "saved by mere belief" and "actions don't count at all" very much explain his horrific arrogance and capacity to spew hate through every cell of his body!
No one who HATES will enter the kingdom of Heaven! (look it up) Mere belief will not "save" you! You MUST try and be just!
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! James 2:19
you reject the clear truth of the resl presnece of christ in the eucharist, umong other things. you do not have true faith unless you accept all that the church teaches
"you do not have true faith unless you accept all that the church teaches ".....the church taught that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe....do u want me to beleive that
The Church never taught that and in fact it was refuted by Catholic clergy. Bishop Oresme discovered that the earth rotated on its axis and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe. This was well BEFORE Copernicus and Galileo (who were also catholics).
The Real presence is dogmatic teaching. Whether the earth is flat or not is not part of dogmatic teaching.
then why did the catholic church call both galileo and copernicus before the pope and have them recant their beliefs that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth was round....and why did they censor and outlaw the documents of both of them because they claimed they were heretical.....do not make your next post as absolutley historically ridiculous as your previous one
Typical that you have to resort to ad hominems and insults to make a point. If you had bothered to open a history book or an encyclopedia then you could have easily looked up Bishop Oresme or Cardinal Nicholas and see for yourself how 'absolutely historically ridiculous' scholars around the world seem to be.
Only YOU know the real historical truth of course... megalomania, anyone? very christian indeed!
first of all i did not insult you once, please point out where i insulted you.....
and you didnt really answer my questions....
-to repost for ya
"why did the catholic church call both galileo and copernicus before the pope and have them recant their beliefs that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth was round....and why did they censor and outlaw the documents of both of them because they claimed they were heretical"
You did, you said I was making my posts historically ridiculous. Implying that you have some superior knowledge over what scholars have actually asserted. So I am curious as to what your claim is and how you intend to prove them wrong.
You made the initial statement, so the burden is on you to prove it. If you have done so, I´m very much obliged to answering your questions.
Did God command us to NOT eat the flesh of another man and to NOT drink blood? IF Jesus said that this TRULLY is my flesh and this TRULLY is my blood and you are to consume, does that not go against what God has commanded us not to do?
i explained this in the video. Jesus could not tell us to do something morally wrong and if eating or drinking christ's flesh and blood is morally wrong then he could not tell us to do so even symbolically. Besides, it is true that it would be wrong to consume the flesh and blood of a mere human, but Jesus Christ also has a divine nature.
you are the one not thinking with an open mind, denying the clear truths when they are right in your face. Jesus wouldn't have told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood if there was something morally wrong with doing so. It would be wrong for a fallen sinfull man to eat the flesh and drink the blood of another fallen sinfull man, but jesus was sinless and divine, we need his real presence inside of us. besides, when we recieve the eucharist, it is not in a cannabalistic fashion.
His flesh, as was his nature, was fully divine as it was fully human. Jesus has no seperate nature of himself that is outside of another. Not part human part God, not all human or all God. But both. And he told us that, "take this and EAT IT this IS MY BODY..." He was not "the same as us" you twit.
1.)No where in the Bible does Jesus say he is God, he says he is his Father's Son and that his Father is also our Father. If I walk the path of ritheousness I am a son of God and so are you.
2.)No where does it say Jesus' flesh was divine. He was not part Human part God. He was Human. He was son of man whom is flesh and son of God in the respect of his righteousness.
3.) Jesus apparently says this bread is his flesh therefore if anything his flesh was bread, not divine.
sir, if you can't even agree with the basic teachings of christianity like the diety of Christ and the trinity. then i really don't know what to say. i have vids proving the diety of christ from scriptrue if you are interested
God gave us the ability to think and question for a reason. Faith in the Most High God is not blind, it doesn't require the aid of another to lead you. If you put your faith in another whom is also blind, won't you both fall into a ditch? If some random woman came up to you and handed you a meal and said "eat this, it is good for you!" and just walked off, would you eat it blindly? What if she added poison to it?
There is nothing worse then a person who stands in darkness and foolishly believes he is in the light. If that person; whom won't even walk around his room to make an educated conclusion on what is light and what is darkness, so that he can find the spot in the room that contains no darkness whatsoever; instead blindly accepts his current location as the spot of the room that contains no darkness. What hope is there for him?
you are the one in darkness, denying the most basic truths of our faith. the bible clearly says that Jesus is God, that he is the eternal word who was made flesh (John 1:1).
I admit that I have not found the spot in the room that contains no darkness, and that what I consider to be light may be darkness, but i still walk around the room with an open mind. You are the one whom stands still and concludes that you are in light. You cannot find the answers until you question.
Actually, it is only when one misunderstands the meaning of the Greek text, does such a one wrongfully, see it as proving the trinity doctrine when in such a matter it really is not do so in any way whatsoever.
Rev-13:8 Doesn't mean that. It means that God knew the solution to the sin problem before the foundation of the Earth. Also "Everyone" was not redeemed. Israelites who were faithful to God were redeemed. Those who were not faithful were NOT redeemed. Okay, God bless you. I really hope for the best for you.
This is to be understood spiritually. It means that we are to partake in the benefits of Christ's sacrifice by continually drawing near to Him for life. As bread nourishes the body, Christ The Bread of Life, nourishes us spiritually and gives us life. Yes Communion is a beautiful thing because we commemorate what He's done out of love for us. He heals us and restores us as we remember His great sacrifice. God bless you! :)
Sadly, lots of Christians do not agree with your interpretation (including those taught by the Apostles)... "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." - by Ignatius of Antioch disciple of St. John the Apostle.
Well, now your using a non-biblical source. I'm a Christian and I most certainly do not abstain from Communion. (or from prayer for that matter that would be illogical for me to do and then call myself a Christian) Communion is a beautiful thing. I feel blessed every single time I partake in it. However, I do not interpret or understand it to mean eating the ACTUAL body of Christ. As I said before that is to be understood spiritually. But I guess we must agree to disagree. Best to you:)
Sure this is a non-biblical source, but it's historical, reliable and gives you some overview of how the first Christian interpreted what Jesus had said (Jn 6 in particular). Obviously this is your right not to subscribe to their interpretation, but you cannot deny that they interpreted His words literally rather than figuratively. May I ask you a question. Had you been born into a Christian family say before 1200 A.D., what your beliefs about the Eucharist would have been? God Bless:)
My belief would have been exactly the same. This source that you point out maybe historical but it is not biblical and therefore unreliable. My aplogies if this offends you but the bible clearly states not to ADD or REMOVE anything from Scripture.(Rev 22:18) "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book" Surely we can agree on that. God bless and keep you. :)
I truly doubt it. See the Eastern Orthodox Church that broke away from the RCC in the XII century, yet they still maintain the belief about the Eucharist being Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
>not to ADD or REMOVE
This is not a part of the Bible, but this is a testimony of how those who knew the Apostles interpreted the words of Jesus. BTW, the only case where some books were removed from the Bible was in the XVI century - Luther did that.
Also that same source that you used stated this right after: "But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But AVOID ALL DIVISIONS, as the beginning of evils."
Sorry if you believe this document and view Protestant brothers and sisters as heretics. I personally view believers of the Catholic faith as my brethren, though we differ in the interpretation of various principles. God bless you. Glad you are spending your time on this which pertains to God. :)
hey if its God's will, then let it be done. But right now im actually interested in the medical field. And i dont know if i could handle being celebate, i always pictured myself getting married and having a family. But religious life is a great vocation and i pray for vocations
OTC, there was a doctor(surgeon) down here making big time cheese in the practice he had going for over 20 years. One day he reached the point where he couldn't tell God no anymore by not answering the call. He was given Holy Orders last year to become a Catholic priest.
funny how there are many protestant and secular scholars that disagree with you on this but then again all you can do is make blankat statements. Sure Power can corrupt but its ludicrous to believe that it corrupted every last one of them after all JEsus promised the devil would never triumph against the church and there were times when the pope wasnt at a council but it didnt exclude position especially since they were being opressed Pope Alexander I is the one whom inserted canon of the mass
its you who are lying for what reason would the early church fathers(whom were students of the apostles themselves) have lied for and what? what would they have stood to gain what difference would it have made to them whether he was in Rome or Jerusalem? The bible even said he went to Antioch and from here probably went to Rome and again what would they(at a time when they were persecuted) have stood to gain? you are a man in complete error and Popes were around a long time they were the head
A lot of people who don't believe in the Real Presence bring up John 15:1, as well as other verses where Jesus uses symbolism. But this is not an argument agains the Real Presence unless you assume that everything that Jesus says is symbolic. If the Eucharist HAS to be symbolic, that also means that Jesus is symbolically God, symbolically the Messiah, symbolically older than Abraham, the Son of Man, and the Son of God. No Protestant would argue that Jesus was speaking symbolically there.
the only reason why i didn't deleate this commetn due to lack of charity on the part of Gutcheckcoming, is because i want ot see the adhominums that heretics go to when they cannot respond to catholic arguemnts. The catholic faith is the true faith!!
there is no cannibal in the bible, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR OUR SALVATION. We must truly eat his flash and drink his blood, truly accept his sacrifice. transubstantiation is not biblical
medusa210562 3 weeks ago
I still believe it to be symbolic, but putting that aside, I'm not understanding why Catholic mass is so centered around the Eucharist. It seems to be the main part. Why is it made to be so important? And what does eating Christ's body and drinking His blood do for us anyway? Does it make us a better person? Does it forgive our sins? If Christ already died for us, why do we need to keep "eating him" again?
jfreakbol 1 month ago
The words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves.
If you want to crucify the Son of God afresh with every Mass, with the Priest's filthy hands holding the chalice high in idolatrous worship, feel free.
I ain't stoppin ya.
skoobalon 5 months ago
u sound mad.
This debate is silly
skoobalon 5 months ago
The interesting thing is that Martin Luther definitely still believed in the RP after his split. Funny how some of the Protestants who have made an idol of him claim to hate the RP.
ChristianEastern 11 months ago
@ChristianEastern Yeah, they love ML more than the Blessed Virgin or the saints or prophets, they put him up there with Moses and Abraham. Also, I heard that Luther could not stand the term "Lutheran". Lutheranism is more close to the Catholic Faith then most fundimentalists churches now a days. And Luther never believed in symbolic baptism or all that crap.
YeshuaisYahweh1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
God bless you and be brave
JezusSlave 11 months ago
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,
the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17,18).
I used to be catholic.. Let me say that it is more than this re sacrifice that is so disrespectful but the beleif that you have to go through the pope to understand the scrip
angeltita24 11 months ago
I love faygo,
321boileranimal 1 year ago
Zkueker are you a White National Socialist???? 88? 88? 88? 88? 88?
I am guessing he knows all 14 words.
321boileranimal 1 year ago
zkeuker88 is a coward because he does not receive comments. he is afraid he will be proven wrong. By the way where was his christian church throughout the ages? Most of the people who call themselves "christians" did not worship until recently. they picked up a Bible and established their own church. The Bible that every christian of all denominations is an edited version of what Catholics use.
FRANKENLUT 1 year ago
Anyway, the catholic only give the body to eat, but no drink. The drink is the blood of Jesus. We save by the blood not by body alone. SO Catholic Still not doing it full. It shall have a better way to do it.
johnthien1 1 year ago
@johnthien1 they do. I went to mass
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
You are wrong. Go to a Catholic Mass and you will see that in most cases both species are used!
FRANKENLUT 1 year ago
I think that's my main issue with Zkueker. He states his Calvinist interpretation of Scripture and then considers the case closed. He is not open to debate.
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
YOU ROCK DUDE! Keep defending the one true church. way to be.
bananymous1 1 year ago
Excellent abbreviated apologetic. I am grateful for this resource you created. Thank you very much.
ysterion 1 year ago
"Trogo" = crunch between the teeth.
DarknessAndRage 1 year ago
Does the saying of Mass bring relief to souls in purgatory? The soul [soul, Kx; man, JB] that sinneth, the same shall die. (Ezek. 18:4, Dy)
JosherForder 2 years ago
Jesus himself said: Do this as a memorial of me. (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24, JB) At Luke 22:19, Kx and Dy read: Do this for a commemoration of me. NAB reads: Do this as a remembrance of me. Jesus did not say that what he did at the Last Supper was a sacrifice of himself or that his disciples were to renew his sacrifice.
JosherForder 2 years ago
According to The Documents of Vatican II: At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic (Sacrifice) of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross . . . —(New York, 1966), edited by W. M. Abbott, S.J., p. 154.
JosherForder 2 years ago
I can't see why this is such a big deal
do you really think god will send all to hell who don't believe on this eucharist ? I think as along as you believe in Chirst is all that matters why need to read more into it
ltrox1 2 years ago
@ltrox1 Look at it this way if all you ever know is vanilla ice cream that fine it tastes good but unfortunately you are missing out on the awesomeness of chocolate ice cream with hot fudge! =)
MrHarshusa2001 11 months ago
You crushed him. Absolutely crushed him. While I can tolerate those Protestants who will respectfully argue about the real presence, I cannot stand when they blaspheme the body and blood of God by calling the real presence doctrine "paganism".
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago 3
thanks, btw. there was never any debate. Zach just read off of an article by matt slick and then refused to respond to this rebuttle. But it jsut shows that zach is not interested in the truth
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
So let's assume your interpretation of this doctrine is correct. Since he ascended, he's not here for us to cannibalize and even if he were, there wouldn't be enough to go around anyway.
This is Jesus by way of george Romero.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Glen, you are definitely in truth, but PLEASE don't forget 2 Timothy 2: 22-26. I don't want you to see you become bitter towards people who were taught to be arrogant in their ignorance.
joeb0 2 years ago
Wow!
It is clear that you do not sit under a Pastor that has been anointed by God.
Zac lines up with the word of God.
bbqprophet 2 years ago
this is not even a response
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
From 9:40 to 10:15, you state that the Catholic Church does not claim to re-sacrifice Christ again at the Mass.
If that is the case, why, at the beginning of the consecration sequence in the Roman Catholic Mass, does the entire congregation say "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands" (ie at the hands of the priest celebrating the Mass)?
That recitation certainly seems to be a re-sacrifice, in rather black & white language.
esper252 2 years ago
the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Because at the hands of the priest it becomes the same sacrifice at Calvary. but it is not a re-sacrifice, or a new sacrifice. its the same sacrifice.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
OK. Could you elaborate on this or suggest a source where I could read more about the doctrine? To say that it's the same sacrifice as the one at Calvary is pretty confusing; perhaps a lengthier explanation would help.
esper252 2 years ago
Thank God for your ministry Glenn. May our Lord Jesus continue to bless and protect you as you present and defend the Christian Faith
frbjoern 2 years ago
Its pretty clear. He did want us to scoff him down our necks and glug down his booze-blood. That utterly cements that the guy was a freaking nutjob!
tommiatkins 2 years ago
Zombie carpenters. Taste like Chicken!
KFJ
tommiatkins 2 years ago
I just got baptized as catholic after attending rcia im a catholic now i feel holy
coolbrian15 2 years ago 2
and you all dog all over protestants for interpreting the bible literally...
BTW, not protestant
seinfan9 3 years ago
we don't "dog" protestants for interpreting the bible literally, we "dog" them for interpreting it wrong
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
"Protestants interpret the Bible litterally. which is NOT the way it was written. everything that happened in the Bible did not LITTERALLY happen. Jesus used parables, expresions, common language etc. to get his point across." - from a Catholic, jfulbright90 or something like that.
seinfan9 3 years ago
What happened to Zach's response? Oh yeah, I forgot, he showed himself for the cowardly little punk that he is and chickened out.
Kelp25 3 years ago
to make matters worse, he also blocked me so i can't comment on his garbage videos or post video responses. I've given up trying to dialogue with him
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
my only greviance though glenn is that you say that in john 6:53 that in the greek the word used is Alethes and im starting to learn greek to read the original greek gospels and I dont find that word in the original greek all I find in that verse are the words Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν which only mean Amen Amen not alethes? this is no disrespect man im just saying what ive found perhaps im looking at the wrong thing
mgk22 3 years ago
I believe that Alethes is the english rendering of the greek word that you just mentioned. My point was that every time that word is used it always means something real.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54)
Some think that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically.
DarknessAndRage 3 years ago
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
DarknessAndRage 3 years ago
ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
John 6:53-54 in its original Greek.
φάγητε = "to eat"
τρώγων = "to crunch between the teeth"
DarknessAndRage 3 years ago
The video makes a hilarious and unsubstantiated statement. It claims that "phago" can have a symbolic meaning, but not the more concrete verb "trogo". Why is that so? Can you provide any reference to an NT scholar explaining how it is impossible for "trogo" to carry a symbolic meaning?
thinkerj 2 years ago
because it means to chew or to gnaw. There is nowhere ins cripture where it is used metophorically
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Yes, why not? There is nothing in the context suggesting that Jesus is discussing the Eucharist. In fact, a Eucharistic interpretation is clearly eisegesis. To eat and drink his body and blood is to receive his sacrifice by faith. Using figurative speech he prepares his disciples for his sacrificial death. In the gospel of John it is stressed over and over again that we are saved by faith in Christ.
thinkerj 2 years ago
no it is not eiegesis. Especially when you read it in conjucntion with the last supper, it is obviously talking about the eucharist. Also take into account that the apostle john does not give us an institution narrative as the other 3 gospel writers do. John 6, is in the place of this
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
@thinkerj
Read John 6. Many walked away from the hard teaching. Do not be deceived by the sweet but Satanic lie that it is purely symbolic and not at all literal. Many in the Baptist and Calvinist camps have fallen for this humanistic lie.
ChristianEastern 11 months ago
Zkueker88 is just a fool
JesusIsChrist777 3 years ago 2
Poor old Zack has a lot to learn.
kpman 3 years ago
Yes. I believe in the thansubstanciation.
capito111 3 years ago 2
min 3:06...'eat his flesh and drink his blood'...this was AGAINST THE LAW of Moses(the jews WERE NOT TO EAT BLOOD!)compared with the vine passage.
in the vine's case there was no restriction in the LAW,in the blood's case...well,i think you get the point
martalog121 3 years ago
yea, i got the point and i think that i addressed it in the vid
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
OTC, well done. Especially in contrasting the "vine" metaphor vs. the literalism of John 6. As you say the disciples very response illustrates their understanding
sprtslvr1973 3 years ago
Look, the originators who formed the seperate churches did used to be Catholic. Who would deny that? But to say things as if we puposely formed different sects for God knows what reason is absolulty idiotic, groundless, and goes against centuries of history.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
I was not implying that the Catholic Church purposely created many different sects. All I was saying is that those sects are daughters of the Catholic Church, even if they want nothing to do with her.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
See thats the problem. What exactly do you mean when you say "daughters of the Catholic Church"? If your not implying the latter whilst using this kind of termonology people get the wrong idea about your accusations.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
The Catholic Church claims that it was her that gave us the Bible, correct? The Bible is the blood of the church (in a sense)and this same blood runs through the veins of all Christian sects. It is what ties all Christians to the Mother Church.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
We claim to have preserved the Old Testement and scribed the New Testement and then in turn preserved the entire text yes. However when it comes to rewritten texts posing itself as the true word of God such as the KJV the only relation is thing that Protestants decided NOT to remove or change. The fact they excluded the Deterocanonical canon is excuse enough to say that they are not of our allifiation when it comes to eclesiastical matters.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
OTC,one important reason why Zach has not responded to this video is that CARM has only one essay on Transubstantiation...and he already read it (read: plagerized it) word-for-word in his first video on the topic. Therefore, he doesn't have anything else written by his hero, Matt Slick, to plagerize in response to this video. What he needs is for Slick to respond to your video...which Zach can then plagerize and make a new video from. Truly sad.
MrNewMan99 3 years ago
exactly
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
it's called faith.
keyfabe449 3 years ago
And more over, how could it have been a literal sacrifice when he had not died for out sins at that point. Jesus also said that if our hands caused us to sin then we should cut them off but we don't do that so wouldn't that seem like a metaphor? Or aka a symbolism. Jesus was teh last sacrifice so that we would never have to do it again so to say that He is being sacrificed again and again, is directly against what the bible teaches. Catholics tend to go more by the Catechism .
Delaney1201 3 years ago
If you really thought that the bread and wine was literally the blood and flash of Jesus and still partook then those are guilty of literal cannibalism. It WAS in fact symbolic. He spoke of blood and flesh as He poured the wine and broke the bread to represent the blood shed and broken flesh. You can look in Leviticus 17 to get the scriptures on cannibalism. Jesus often spoke in parables so that only believers would be able to understand him.
Delaney1201 3 years ago
The doctrine of private revelation of God's truth has bigger holes in it than the Grand Canyon. It goes against entire passages of the Bible when it obviously instructs us to have some sort of final mediator when it comes to set doctrines of faith and morals because the author who wrote it and the early Christians who read it fully understood that without it the Church would fall into a chaos of arguments and disagreements. Hey, that sounds slightly familiar doesn't it?
Childinfaith 3 years ago
Yes, I agree that one final mediator is needed, but he has not made himself known for if he did we would not be in this state of confusion.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
To add, there have been disputes and arguments within the Church before and all were settled within the Coucils and Eclesiasticals so all could reference the offical teaching of the Church. It is only when men started to disregard the mediation of the Church is when other sects were created. There has been division ever since the very begining. IE. Judas, and the Gnostics in the 5th century. But Church teaching held fast against forgin theology and kept itself pure.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
Yes, the Catholic Church forged a doctrine that has remained unchanged from the start, but this is only because changing a set doctrine afterwards would destroy the Churches credibility. The Qur'ran has changed, but that doesn't mean the book wasn't tainted to begin with.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
And yet still you provide no proof. And to add fundememtalists adhere to the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine way after the 5th century, however you just stated that we have adhered to a doctrine since then and remained as such to keep our reputation It's a messy buisness to mix funky and empty accusations. So tell me oh wise one, when was the Catholic Church founded and by whom?
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.) Even a man whom speaks wisdom can also speak foolishnes. I am not wise, but i am no fool.
2.) I merely stated that the Catholic Church has a strong motive for keeping set doctrines intact throughout her life. God does not change, so neither should his Church. Yet, apparently his laws change as the Catholic Church admits that she has changed God's day of rest from the last day; after his work had been complete; to the first day. She sits and rests while God is hard at work.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
3.) I am not sure the date however I do know that the Catholic Church was founded by the Devil and all those whom have been decieved by her.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
Founded by the devil. Yes thats a good ground to stand on when you perhaps talking to a 10 year old. Every Church was founded by someone. Lutheranism: Martin Luther, Calvinism: John Calvin, Presbetyrians: John Knox and it goes on and on and on. I ask again. Who founded the Catholic Church?
You also still haven't provided any proof of your claims. ONLY ACCUSATIONS.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
All Prophets of God are merely pens while God is the writer. This goes the same for any Church that is established. Either God founded a Church through a man, or the Devil did. It is as simple as that. The proof is in what you Church teaches. She has placed idols like Mary, the Eucharist, Saints and Jesus infront of God. She has her church members engage in cannabilism. She has changed God's Holy day.....
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
... She has given men the titles that belong to God like Father and Holy Father. She assigns her children GOD parents at baptism. She allows her members to engage in pagan holidays like Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving. She allows her members to tell lies to their children. They say there is a santa clause and there is an easter bunny, only to fess up to them at an older age. The RCC does not say a thing because they WANT you to sin. The more you sin the farther you are from God.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
As usual we get the mainstream kind of excuses. I'm guessing by the "holy day, holidays" part you are a seventh day adventist?
All of your problems with the Church have been refuted already countless times. In fact they are even here on YouTube. Diving into conspiracy won't get you anywhere in this world dude. Before I go on, are you a Seventh day adventist?
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.) No, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist.
2.) Those "mainstream excuses" have never been refuted, you cannot refute the truth. You can only give excuses as to why the Catholics observes these abominations.
3.) Do you know how I came to these conclusions? I read the Bible with an open mind and without preformed ideas on what is True and what is False. I read the Bible with the only mediator I need, The Most High God. Not a man, but God whom is the revealer of all.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
"I agree that one final mediator is needed, but he has not made himself known"- You
So which is it? Your personal interpretations of Scripute which is somehow authoritative truth, or nothing has shown itself yet? Picking and choosing what you believe thats all you guys do. The Bible isn't a menu sir and thowing away the passages that tell you specificly that you cannot determine or intperprate scripture without the help of a seperate authority is maddness.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.) I don't pick and choose, I look at both sides of the coin and meditate on it. Then when I have come to my conclusion I move onto the next subject. God is wise and there is wisdom behind each of his rules, and I do not accept everything that I read in the Bible unless it is logical and is right (weither I like it or not).
2.) My interprutation is mediated by the Most High God.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
See this is what I'm talking about because I'm starting to see a pattern in your logic here sir. You constructed this idea that you by yourself can interprate Scripture better than a Church that first of all preserved it and second of all wrote it. So God just comes down from heaven and teaches you how to read the Bible? Thats not even what the Bible says! What you are still describing is private interpratation.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.) So are you telling me that if I sincerally wanted to know the truth, so that I could walk the path of righteousness and help lead others down that path, God wouldn't guide me? Is God not capable of doing such a thing?
2.) That Church was established by men and men are not to be trusted when it comes to things of God.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
If God inspired the Church to write the scriptures, why is it so hard to understand that he also inspire them to teach it?
Childinfaith 3 years ago
God inspired the Prophets to write the scriptures. The church merely collected those writings and put them together.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
So the prophets and the Church are somehow unrelated according to you?
Sound pretty convenient for your theologies doesn't it?
Childinfaith 3 years ago 2
The relationship between the Church and the Prophets is irrelevant. Jesus was a Jew yet he spoke out against the priests who were responsible for protecting, preserving, and revealing what was written on the Holy scriptures. Those priests failed just like the current ones do. The situation with your Church is no different than the Church that Moses started, both "sees" are blind to spiritual truths. Truth is undeniable yet many deny what your church has to say.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
The Church was not established BY man. It was established by Jesus UPON man.
Childinfaith 3 years ago 2
Moses started Judiasm yet very few understood what the scriptures said until Jesus came along. Jesus is no dead and the truth of what he said died with him. And FYI Jesus was a man who revealed the truths that his and our FATHER (GOD) told him.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
Jesus is not Dead! He lives! And he is our most high God. You sir are preaching AntiChrist heresy!
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
1.)Your god was a man sent from God. He never was God, let alone the Most High God. He is a part of God like an engine is a part of a car. You do not call the engine "car", you call the engine "engine".
2.)If your Church labels me a heretic, then I must be doing alot right in my life.
3.)If your Christ is Jesus, then you can call me Anti-Christ all you like, I take no offense.
4.)Giving a man the title God or Most High God IS blasphemy... end of story.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
5.)maybe I went to far in saying that Jesus is dead. Just a bad choice of words. What I was trying to say is that when Jesus he took the truth of what he said with him.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
Mr you don't know what you said. Maybe you did not study bible. What did you read? newspaper?
akoanani 3 years ago
Isaiah 9:5?
"For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace."
Agila1 3 years ago
This is arianism. An already proven to be heresy.
theGermexican 2 years ago
Is Christ Jesus really the "most high God" or is he submissive to the "most high God" (God the Father)? I would like to hear your explanation on the matter.
JosherForder 2 years ago
Matt 21:42, "Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"
Here we see God expected the wicked Pharisees to be able to read scripture and holds them personally accountable...if they were expected to see what God plainly wrote I'm pretty sure the rest of us are. Besides does God not give His sheep the ability to understand His word?
KrigareavGud 3 years ago
3.) Yes, one final mediator (witness) is needed to reveal the error of our present state, however he has not appeared so until then I will just have to trust in the Most High God to bring me truth and keep me out of error.
4.) This mediator is only needed to correct those whom are in error, he does not need to correct those whom are on the right path.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
In this day in age one man's truth is another man's falsehood and the wheel just keeps on spinning. And only the intersession of the Holy Spirit can seperate those who adhere to truth and those who don't. Once must look at origins and context to realize what is and what is not truth. And they indeed have been refuted sir. One just needs to know where to look. But how can one defend his faith when he says, "I don't believe that." when the only retort is, "Well I think your lying."?
Childinfaith 3 years ago
Origin doesn't have a bearing on the complete thruthfulness of a subject when that origin is man. Only through a rightous mindset can one begin to gain wisdom and understanding, and be able to differ between truth and lies.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
But don't forget to mention the greatest factor. The intervention of the Holy Spirit.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.)God has warned us about the blind leading the blind. You cannot see unless you open your eyes and look around.
2.)If the Catholic Church was the One True Church then why has it been braking a part since it first came into existance? Is God the Author of confusion? How come so many read the same book but conclude different things? How can so many be confused about what the Bible says? Shouldn't all who read a book that is written by an all knowing and wise God come to the same conclusions?
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
Ahh that does bring up a question doesn't it? The reason people come up with different interpreations is 1. They tossed out the idea of a mediator to help them understand the Scriptures aka the Church. 2. They decided to REWRITE the Bible aka the KJV, NIV, ANIV or the Jehova's wittness's bible the NWT.
The Catholic Church isn't broken within itself. The other churches claim a seperate exsisence from us, thereofe they include us with no eclesiastical authority over them.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.) Then why is there a western and an eastern Catholic Church?
2.) Those Churches are daughters of the mother Chuch. They exist because of the Catholic Church, they are her offspring.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
1.)There are different "RITES", but they are not different sects all together. All the Catholic rites proclaim that same doctrines and beliefs. A Western Catholic beleives the same thing as an Eastern Catholic. The only thing thats differnt is the culture and how that culture affected the procedure of how the Mass was conducted. But the faith is exactly the same.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
2.)They most certainly our not our offspring. You make sound as if we condoned their seperation as a mother choses to birth a child. Protestant churches claim seperate eclesiastical authority and are therefore outside of the Catholic Church. They are not our "offspring" ,but more along the lines of "dissenters". Since they hold to different doctrines as us they are not of our true holy body becasuse the adhere to what we believe as false.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
Does a child always do as the parent wishes? No, the child has it own wants and needs and eventually wants to be its own person. These daughters were born from the very book that the Catholic Church put together. They are their Mother's offspring, they just wish to live their own lives, seperate from the control of their mother.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
They are spwan of disidence not of the Bible. They REWORTE the Scriptures. They do not read the exact same words we do as infalliable doctrine. Since this is the case, they are not under our wing and our charge as having to take responsibility of their doctrines.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
A mediator has not made itslef known? That is absolutly untrue and makes no sence. The Bible itself tells us to the Church to settle matters in an authoritative finality. Matt.18:15-18. The state of confusion lies not at the falut of God, but at the fault of Man and ultimately Satan and all his lies. Does this mean God's truth is not longer present, no because Jesus promised that the Gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against his Church.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
So what your implying is that every person must construct their own verion of the truth in their own mind with out any help from a seperate source, person, or Church. I'm sorry but Scripture strongly disagrees. It warns against private interpretation. And if everyone has the capasity to just magicaly have an apifiny and know all Gods truth then why does every person who follws that teaching and calim to know the "truth" have different ideas of the truth!?
Childinfaith 3 years ago
I do not claim to know the truth, I only believe what I have is true. I do believe that what I ocnsider to be true may be false, which is why I debate. I just want people to recognize the fact that they are unknowing just like me.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
Zkueker88 is an extremely hateful individual and he's a bigot of colossal proportions.
His false idea that one is "saved by mere belief" and "actions don't count at all" very much explain his horrific arrogance and capacity to spew hate through every cell of his body!
No one who HATES will enter the kingdom of Heaven! (look it up) Mere belief will not "save" you! You MUST try and be just!
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! James 2:19
PriestessLeah 3 years ago
what about john 6:47
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."
jkachovec 3 years ago
you dont beleive in christ unless you follow all that he has commanded
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
no, actually i do belive christ is the son of god and messiah.......
jkachovec 3 years ago
you reject the clear truth of the resl presnece of christ in the eucharist, umong other things. you do not have true faith unless you accept all that the church teaches
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
"you do not have true faith unless you accept all that the church teaches ".....the church taught that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe....do u want me to beleive that
jkachovec 3 years ago
The Church never taught that and in fact it was refuted by Catholic clergy. Bishop Oresme discovered that the earth rotated on its axis and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe. This was well BEFORE Copernicus and Galileo (who were also catholics).
The Real presence is dogmatic teaching. Whether the earth is flat or not is not part of dogmatic teaching.
SolaCatholica 3 years ago
then why did the catholic church call both galileo and copernicus before the pope and have them recant their beliefs that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth was round....and why did they censor and outlaw the documents of both of them because they claimed they were heretical.....do not make your next post as absolutley historically ridiculous as your previous one
jkachovec 3 years ago
Typical that you have to resort to ad hominems and insults to make a point. If you had bothered to open a history book or an encyclopedia then you could have easily looked up Bishop Oresme or Cardinal Nicholas and see for yourself how 'absolutely historically ridiculous' scholars around the world seem to be.
Only YOU know the real historical truth of course... megalomania, anyone? very christian indeed!
SolaCatholica 3 years ago
first of all i did not insult you once, please point out where i insulted you.....
and you didnt really answer my questions....
-to repost for ya
"why did the catholic church call both galileo and copernicus before the pope and have them recant their beliefs that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth was round....and why did they censor and outlaw the documents of both of them because they claimed they were heretical"
jkachovec 3 years ago
lol i just noticed this but....my bad the sun is the center of our solar system NOT the universe
jkachovec 3 years ago
You did, you said I was making my posts historically ridiculous. Implying that you have some superior knowledge over what scholars have actually asserted. So I am curious as to what your claim is and how you intend to prove them wrong.
You made the initial statement, so the burden is on you to prove it. If you have done so, I´m very much obliged to answering your questions.
SolaCatholica 3 years ago
Did God command us to NOT eat the flesh of another man and to NOT drink blood? IF Jesus said that this TRULLY is my flesh and this TRULLY is my blood and you are to consume, does that not go against what God has commanded us not to do?
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago 2
i explained this in the video. Jesus could not tell us to do something morally wrong and if eating or drinking christ's flesh and blood is morally wrong then he could not tell us to do so even symbolically. Besides, it is true that it would be wrong to consume the flesh and blood of a mere human, but Jesus Christ also has a divine nature.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
What if Jesus didn't say that? Let us just think about this with an open mind. Only one of the two are true.
1.) God doesn't want you to eat any man's/jesus' flesh and drink their/his blood (you are not what you eat)
2.) God wants us to eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood. (cannabalism + the belief that you are what you eat)
Only one is true.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
you are the one not thinking with an open mind, denying the clear truths when they are right in your face. Jesus wouldn't have told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood if there was something morally wrong with doing so. It would be wrong for a fallen sinfull man to eat the flesh and drink the blood of another fallen sinfull man, but jesus was sinless and divine, we need his real presence inside of us. besides, when we recieve the eucharist, it is not in a cannabalistic fashion.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Jesus had the same body as us. His flesh and blood was the same as ours. He was human, just like us.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
His flesh, as was his nature, was fully divine as it was fully human. Jesus has no seperate nature of himself that is outside of another. Not part human part God, not all human or all God. But both. And he told us that, "take this and EAT IT this IS MY BODY..." He was not "the same as us" you twit.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
1.)No where in the Bible does Jesus say he is God, he says he is his Father's Son and that his Father is also our Father. If I walk the path of ritheousness I am a son of God and so are you.
2.)No where does it say Jesus' flesh was divine. He was not part Human part God. He was Human. He was son of man whom is flesh and son of God in the respect of his righteousness.
3.) Jesus apparently says this bread is his flesh therefore if anything his flesh was bread, not divine.
4.)No name calling.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
sir, if you can't even agree with the basic teachings of christianity like the diety of Christ and the trinity. then i really don't know what to say. i have vids proving the diety of christ from scriptrue if you are interested
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
God gave us the ability to think and question for a reason. Faith in the Most High God is not blind, it doesn't require the aid of another to lead you. If you put your faith in another whom is also blind, won't you both fall into a ditch? If some random woman came up to you and handed you a meal and said "eat this, it is good for you!" and just walked off, would you eat it blindly? What if she added poison to it?
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
There is nothing worse then a person who stands in darkness and foolishly believes he is in the light. If that person; whom won't even walk around his room to make an educated conclusion on what is light and what is darkness, so that he can find the spot in the room that contains no darkness whatsoever; instead blindly accepts his current location as the spot of the room that contains no darkness. What hope is there for him?
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
you are the one in darkness, denying the most basic truths of our faith. the bible clearly says that Jesus is God, that he is the eternal word who was made flesh (John 1:1).
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
I admit that I have not found the spot in the room that contains no darkness, and that what I consider to be light may be darkness, but i still walk around the room with an open mind. You are the one whom stands still and concludes that you are in light. You cannot find the answers until you question.
TheMessengerY2K 3 years ago
Actually, it is only when one misunderstands the meaning of the Greek text, does such a one wrongfully, see it as proving the trinity doctrine when in such a matter it really is not do so in any way whatsoever.
JosherForder 2 years ago
Do the Holy scriptures teach, only if the man is divine in nature it is okay to eat his flesh and blood? No it does not!
JosherForder 2 years ago
Rev-13:8 Doesn't mean that. It means that God knew the solution to the sin problem before the foundation of the Earth. Also "Everyone" was not redeemed. Israelites who were faithful to God were redeemed. Those who were not faithful were NOT redeemed. Okay, God bless you. I really hope for the best for you.
JCnena 3 years ago
This is to be understood spiritually. It means that we are to partake in the benefits of Christ's sacrifice by continually drawing near to Him for life. As bread nourishes the body, Christ The Bread of Life, nourishes us spiritually and gives us life. Yes Communion is a beautiful thing because we commemorate what He's done out of love for us. He heals us and restores us as we remember His great sacrifice. God bless you! :)
JCnena 3 years ago
JCeena,
Sadly, lots of Christians do not agree with your interpretation (including those taught by the Apostles)... "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." - by Ignatius of Antioch disciple of St. John the Apostle.
hicnar 3 years ago
Hicnar,
Well, now your using a non-biblical source. I'm a Christian and I most certainly do not abstain from Communion. (or from prayer for that matter that would be illogical for me to do and then call myself a Christian) Communion is a beautiful thing. I feel blessed every single time I partake in it. However, I do not interpret or understand it to mean eating the ACTUAL body of Christ. As I said before that is to be understood spiritually. But I guess we must agree to disagree. Best to you:)
JCnena 3 years ago
JCnena,
Sure this is a non-biblical source, but it's historical, reliable and gives you some overview of how the first Christian interpreted what Jesus had said (Jn 6 in particular). Obviously this is your right not to subscribe to their interpretation, but you cannot deny that they interpreted His words literally rather than figuratively. May I ask you a question. Had you been born into a Christian family say before 1200 A.D., what your beliefs about the Eucharist would have been? God Bless:)
hicnar 3 years ago
Hicnar,
My belief would have been exactly the same. This source that you point out maybe historical but it is not biblical and therefore unreliable. My aplogies if this offends you but the bible clearly states not to ADD or REMOVE anything from Scripture.(Rev 22:18) "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book" Surely we can agree on that. God bless and keep you. :)
JCnena 3 years ago
>My belief would have been exactly the same.
I truly doubt it. See the Eastern Orthodox Church that broke away from the RCC in the XII century, yet they still maintain the belief about the Eucharist being Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
>not to ADD or REMOVE
This is not a part of the Bible, but this is a testimony of how those who knew the Apostles interpreted the words of Jesus. BTW, the only case where some books were removed from the Bible was in the XVI century - Luther did that.
God Bless
hicnar 3 years ago
Also that same source that you used stated this right after: "But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But AVOID ALL DIVISIONS, as the beginning of evils."
JCnena 3 years ago
Sorry if you believe this document and view Protestant brothers and sisters as heretics. I personally view believers of the Catholic faith as my brethren, though we differ in the interpretation of various principles. God bless you. Glad you are spending your time on this which pertains to God. :)
JCnena 3 years ago
why is it so hard to believe in the eucharist, it is such a wonderful thing.
No man has the authority to change Gods Church!
amenitellyou 3 years ago 2
you know catholisism very well you should become a priest
Partyboywithkeg 3 years ago
hey if its God's will, then let it be done. But right now im actually interested in the medical field. And i dont know if i could handle being celebate, i always pictured myself getting married and having a family. But religious life is a great vocation and i pray for vocations
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
OTC, there was a doctor(surgeon) down here making big time cheese in the practice he had going for over 20 years. One day he reached the point where he couldn't tell God no anymore by not answering the call. He was given Holy Orders last year to become a Catholic priest.
Just something to think about. ;)
PatristicEchoes 3 years ago
peter's body was not found in jerusalem, it was found in rome. stop beleiving
psudo-archeological scholars just to further your position
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
I have to ask, which history books are you reading?
PatristicEchoes 3 years ago
funny how there are many protestant and secular scholars that disagree with you on this but then again all you can do is make blankat statements. Sure Power can corrupt but its ludicrous to believe that it corrupted every last one of them after all JEsus promised the devil would never triumph against the church and there were times when the pope wasnt at a council but it didnt exclude position especially since they were being opressed Pope Alexander I is the one whom inserted canon of the mass
mgk22 3 years ago
Nope 1st. And you still havent answered my question what would they have had to lie about?
mgk22 3 years ago
its you who are lying for what reason would the early church fathers(whom were students of the apostles themselves) have lied for and what? what would they have stood to gain what difference would it have made to them whether he was in Rome or Jerusalem? The bible even said he went to Antioch and from here probably went to Rome and again what would they(at a time when they were persecuted) have stood to gain? you are a man in complete error and Popes were around a long time they were the head
mgk22 3 years ago
A lot of people who don't believe in the Real Presence bring up John 15:1, as well as other verses where Jesus uses symbolism. But this is not an argument agains the Real Presence unless you assume that everything that Jesus says is symbolic. If the Eucharist HAS to be symbolic, that also means that Jesus is symbolically God, symbolically the Messiah, symbolically older than Abraham, the Son of Man, and the Son of God. No Protestant would argue that Jesus was speaking symbolically there.
seltian 3 years ago
Well done... this is pretty thorough... did he ever respond?
theowarner 3 years ago
he says that he'll get to it eventually but he's busy right now...yet he somehow has time to make other videos...
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
its simple, Zkueker simply is unable to refute it so hes having to dodge it ;)
mgk22 3 years ago
not really important to respond to nonsense.Enjoy being a cannibal.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
the only reason why i didn't deleate this commetn due to lack of charity on the part of Gutcheckcoming, is because i want ot see the adhominums that heretics go to when they cannot respond to catholic arguemnts. The catholic faith is the true faith!!
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
you have no arguments your irrational and misuse the word of God to defend the great whore of babylon.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
i refuted all of zkueker88's points and he has still yet to respond to any of them.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
you didnt refute one of them just spewed unhistorical nonsense and mistranslations
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
unhistorical? all the early christians beleived in the real presnece of christ in the eucharist, even protestant historians recognize this.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
no they dont, one small fragment did most likely one of the many rebuked by paul , more mindless dribble.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago