Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by colbe


Ezekiel, Jesus , John, Paul and Jeremiah all speak of a third temple. In fact, when you read the dimensions of it you know it's certainly not Solomon's or Herod's temple.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Because that's what the Jews plan to do. They aren't redeemed to Christ until He returns.

They, Talmudic Jews, will not be redeemed by Christ. They will weep and gnash when Christ returns.

That is absurd, that's half the purpose of the tribulatio. And both Paul and Jesus said their blindness was not permanent, but until the fullness of the gentiles was complete. The story of the prodigal son is about the Jews coming back to God. Now don't be like the example of the older brother in that parable.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No I am not. I'm denying that Jesus was "the prince that shall come". That's a title for the Antichrist.

You do when you say that the 70 weeks Messianic prophecy was not fulfilled by Jesus as Daniel prophesied. I do not claim that "the prince that shall come" is Jesus.

Please tell who he was then.

It was Titus, the prince, who along with Jesus destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.

Titus Vespasian was not Arab. And he never entered the temple and declared himself to be God as Paul describes in 2 Thesselonians 2:3-4. Nor was Titus a prince.

edit on 7-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You are combining two different events.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Because that's what the Jews plan to do. They aren't redeemed to Christ until He returns.

They, Talmudic Jews, will not be redeemed by Christ. They will weep and gnash when Christ returns.

That is absurd, that's half the purpose of the tribulatio. And both Paul and Jesus said their blindness was not permanent, but until the fullness of the gentiles was complete. The story of the prodigal son is about the Jews coming back to God. Now don't be like the example of the older brother in that parable.

There is a big difference between Talmudic Jews who hate Jesus and say "Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement." and Jews who have rejected Jesus out of ignorance.

Only a remnant will be saved. Those who are, won't be magically converted after the return of Christ. They must be born again before His return as any other must.

reply to post by colbe

There is no third temple to be rebuilt. This is the New Covenant, Jesus' temple is His Church. Our Lord resides there, in every Catholic Church around the world, in the Tabernacle. Our Lord's one time sacrifice is offered to the Father in an unbloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every day, every hour, all around the world.

Scripture says he was offered once and only once. You people continually sacrifice him, as if once were not enough for you. The Lord's supper is a symbolic gesture done in his rememberance, not literally eating his body and drinking his blood like some disgusting vampiric ritual, but rather taking in his teaching into ourselves that he would die for our sins and the wine repesenting his blood, his Holy Spirit because life is in the blood and Spirit is life and that is why we were forbidden to consume blood and things with blood in them and food offered to idols per Council of Jerusalem.

The catholic church is certainly not the tabernacle and nowhere in scripture will you find that, for the tabernacle resides in God's people, not in some gaudy cathedral built to house a bloody sun idol with a crust of bread in it.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by colbe

 

There is no third temple to be rebuilt. This is the New Covenant, Jesus' temple is His Church. Our Lord resides there, in every Catholic Church around the world, in the Tabernacle. Our Lord's one time sacrifice is offered to the Father in an unbloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every day, every hour, all around the world.

Scripture says he was offered once and only once. You people continually sacrifice him, as if once were not enough for you. The Lord's supper is a symbolic gesture done in his rememberance, not literally eating his body and drinking his blood

No one is sacrificing Jesus in the Eucharistic Mass.

Belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been the view of the majority of Christians since the earliest days of the church, and it remains so today. It is a minority Protestant view (which is not shared by the Lutherans, Anglicans and many Methodists) that "communion" is nothing more than a remembrance.

You can insult the perspective all you want, but yours is the one that has resulted from the rejection of what the early church fathers taught, and is still held to be true by most Christians.

reply to post by truejew


Why are you being so judgmental? A Jew making those statements is no worse than Saul a Jew persecuting Christians before conversion. Christ can redeem anyone He chooses to at any time. I hope they all come to know Christ as their Savior.

reply to post by truejew


No I am not, Paul was talking about the man of sin (Antichrist) and "the prince that shall come" is one of the 33 different titles for the same man of sin found in the Bible. You said Titus Vespasian was that prince. Which he wasn't, he was an Emperor.

reply to post by adjensen

You can insult the perspective all you want, but yours is the one that has resulted from the rejection of what the early church fathers taught, and is still held to be true by most Christians.

Show me, anywhere in the NT where the Apostles are talking about Christ's presence being in the cracker. The apostles understood that this gesture was a symbolic gesture of the new covenant to come. You take something literal that was meant for the allegorical.

Luke 22:19-20

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Symbolic right there.

Something very important on the Holy Eucharist.

Our Protestant brothers and sisters, the bread and wine and sometimes juice and crackers remain bread and wine, juice and crackers. Lutherans somehow think there is a change, the bread and wine is present and so is Our Lord. Wrong, it remains bread and wine. They have NO Apostolic succession. Lutherans can call it Consubstantiation which differs from Catholic Transubstantiation, whatever, doesn't matter, they cannot confect the most Holy Eucharist. To be positive, it maybe a spiritual communion, it is not the real thing, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Satan and the anti-Christ are out to destroy Roman Catholicism, the faith. When you see the anti-Christ attempt to abolish the most Holy Eucharist. Remember....I wish before. Actually, God is going to enlighten you, everyone personally during the "awakening" as Protestants know it and Catholics refer to it as the Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17, 1 Cor 3:13).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No I am not, Paul was talking about the man of sin (Antichrist) and "the prince that shall come" is one of the 33 different titles for the same man of sin found in the Bible. You said Titus Vespasian was that prince. Which he wasn't, he was an Emperor.

The prince that Daniel spoke of in Daniel 9 is not the Antichrist. The prince began the desolation of the temple in 70AD. The Antichrist will be there at the final desolation which has not happened yet.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by colbe

 

Belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been the view of the majority of Christians since the earliest days of the church, and it remains so today. It is a minority Protestant view (which is not shared by the Lutherans, Anglicans and many Methodists) that "communion" is nothing more than a remembrance.

Jesus said this you do in remembrance of me, not this you do because the bread and wine magically turns into body and blood.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Ezekiel, Jesus , John, Paul and Jeremiah all speak of a third temple. In fact, when you read the dimensions of it you know it's certainly not Solomon's or Herod's temple.

Show me, I am interested. What verses.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by colbe

 

Belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been the view of the majority of Christians since the earliest days of the church, and it remains so today. It is a minority Protestant view (which is not shared by the Lutherans, Anglicans and many Methodists) that "communion" is nothing more than a remembrance.

Jesus said this you do in remembrance of me, not this you do because the bread and wine magically turns into body and blood.

edit on 8-7-2013 by truejew because: Fixed code

truejew,

Some of Christ's followers could not understand Christ saying eat My body, drink My blood. They were
thinking, how impossible, this is cannibalism. Jesus tried to set them straight with the "spirit and life" verse.
Jesus explains to them, do not think in a human way, think "spiritually", supernaturally.

God can do anything, this is His plan, to come to you in the Eucharist.

Here is a sign KJV readers miss. In the KJV Bible, John 6:66 is the verse where some of Christ's followers
walk away, never to follow Our Lord again. They disbelieved in His presence in the Eucharist, or as the first Christians called it, breaking bread, break the bread. In the Catholic Bible, the original actually, the Vulgate, this verse is John 6:67. Catholics believe!

The famous number: 6:66. Yikes!!

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by colbe

 

There is no third temple to be rebuilt. This is the New Covenant, Jesus' temple is His Church. Our Lord resides there, in every Catholic Church around the world, in the Tabernacle. Our Lord's one time sacrifice is offered to the Father in an unbloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every day, every hour, all around the world.

Scripture says he was offered once and only once. You people continually sacrifice him, as if once were not enough for you. The Lord's supper is a symbolic gesture done in his rememberance, not literally eating his body and drinking his blood like some disgusting vampiric ritual, but rather taking in his teaching into ourselves that he would die for our sins and the wine repesenting his blood, his Holy Spirit because life is in the blood and Spirit is life and that is why we were forbidden to consume blood and things with blood in them and food offered to idols per Council of Jerusalem.

The catholic church is certainly not the tabernacle and nowhere in scripture will you find that, for the tabernacle resides in God's people, not in some gaudy cathedral built to house a bloody sun idol with a crust of bread in it.

God the Father wants the world to remember Jesus' sacrifice and we're still all sinning. Our Lord is NOT resacrificed, in the Holy Mass. The Mass is Calvary made present again but in an unbloody manner, the meaning of "clean oblation" in Malachi 1:11. Jesus is offered to the Father in an unbloody manner. Notice, read Revelation, it is the Holy Mass offered in Heaven.

You may find it hard to believe all this till God shows you in the prophesied "awakening." The reason the Holy Mass is true worship as God the Father wishes.

Yes, I agree, when you've been baptized and are free of mortal sin, God resides in your soul. You might explain it, filled with the Holy Spirit. And we both agree, God can do anything, be everywhere and two places at once. He also resides in the Tabernacle of every Catholic Church, there in the most Holy Eucharist. A "type" in the Old Covenant was the Ark of the Covenant, God resided there.

I disagree with "gawdy", why are the cathedrals and beautiful churches, a few Protestant too, so ornate? To honor God, the best art work through Christian history honors God. We give our best to God.

adjensen is kind, I see he replied to you.



Take care and blessings,


colbe

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No I am not, Paul was talking about the man of sin (Antichrist) and "the prince that shall come" is one of the 33 different titles for the same man of sin found in the Bible. You said Titus Vespasian was that prince. Which he wasn't, he was an Emperor.

The prince that Daniel spoke of in Daniel 9 is not the Antichrist. The prince began the desolation of the temple in 70AD. The Antichrist will be there at the final desolation which has not happened yet.

There was no Prince who sat in the temple in 70 AD and declared himself to be God. A Roman soldier tossed a torch into the temple and ignited the wood. That's not what Paul detailed in 2 Thesselonians 2:3-4.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Ezekiel, Jesus , John, Paul and Jeremiah all speak of a third temple. In fact, when you read the dimensions of it you know it's certainly not Solomon's or Herod's temple.

Show me, I am interested. What verses.

Google third temple references.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No I am not, Paul was talking about the man of sin (Antichrist) and "the prince that shall come" is one of the 33 different titles for the same man of sin found in the Bible. You said Titus Vespasian was that prince. Which he wasn't, he was an Emperor.

The prince that Daniel spoke of in Daniel 9 is not the Antichrist. The prince began the desolation of the temple in 70AD. The Antichrist will be there at the final desolation which has not happened yet.

There was no Prince who sat in the temple in 70 AD and declared himself to be God. A Roman soldier tossed a torch into the temple and ignited the wood. That's not what Paul detailed in 2 Thesselonians 2:3-4.

Paul spoke of the Antichrist in the end times, not the prince who Daniel spoke of in Daniel 9 who came in 70 AD. Daniel's prophecy was that Jesus along with the prince would destroy the temple, not that the prince would sit in the temple. In Daniel's prophecy, Jesus works with the prince. In end time prophecy, Jesus does not work with the Antichrist.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Luke 22:19-20

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Symbolic right there.

He says "This IS my body", not "This is symbolic of my body".

This is in conjunction with John 6:

I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:48-58 NIV)

You are essentially in agreement with the Jews in verse 52 -- their answer would be "he must be speaking symbolically," because they did not understand how Christ could really give himself to us in the Eucharist.

I would counter your "there's nothing that says it is literal" with "there's nothing that says it is symbolic", and the fact that the earliest church history that we know of includes evidence for belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is indicative of that reality.

The pagans of the time commonly held meals in remembrance of the dead, so if that's all that this was, it seems highly unlikely that the Synoptic Gospels, as well as 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, would be so explicit in saying that it needed to be done, and done often. Instead, it is established as being THE core event in the life of the Christian, implying something far more involved than occasionally lifting a toast to the memory of Jesus.

reply to post by adjensen


If you want to believe it turns into blood and flesh, then have at it. We both drink the same wine and eat the same unleavened crackers. For Pete's sake the thief on the cross partook of neither and wasn't baptized. Christians fight over the sillyist things.

With Love, (lol)

NuT