He thinks the idea that the Bible is all connected was invented by Protestants LOL

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

He thinks the idea that the Bible is all connected was invented by Protestants LOL

---

Least I do t like phish... Hahahha

So Doc,...are you going to respond with anything of substance?

Faithful Ag said:

---

So Doc,...are you going to respond with anything of substance?

---

This is a rhetorical question right? He obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

Doc...you still there?? Do you have a response?

I am not missing the point. You want to remove any Jewishness from the Messiah. Yeshua is from the tribe of Judah. He came to bear witness to the truth (Torah). He came to reconcile the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The "new" covenant is with them. The nations are welcomed to come and be grafted in.

The plain meaning from the context of the passage is those who do things in my name if they are lawless then it doesn't mean anything He never knew you. If you are lawless then you practice sin (1 John 3:4). You are not following Torah. You are trying to explain this word without the context of the entire Bible. That is a problem. Sin is not following Torah.

This also aligns with Matthew 5:17-20:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets! I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 Amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or serif shall ever pass away from the Torah until all things come to pass. 19 Therefore, whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever keeps and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Torah scholars, you shall never enter the kingdom of heaven!

If you stop (annul) doing a commandment and teach others to do the same (which is lawlessness) then you will be least in the kingdom. In Judaism, least in this regards means not in. But whoever keeps and teaches them will be great.

Some of the Pharisees were dropping some of the commandments deeming the traditions more important. They were being lawless. Hence, Yeshua's comment in verse 20.

Yeshua clearly teaches here to follow the commandments...not just 10. He is speaking from the Torah and the Prophets. The Messiah is cannot speak against the Torah. He cannot teach others to annul even the least of the commandments. For He did then He would be a hypocrite as He calls some of the Pharisees for doing the same exact thing.

You're welcome to your interpretation. You're not welcome to your own definitions.

The word just means without law. Whether it means the Law or general lawlessness is subject to interpretation of the text.

It is not my interpretation it is the context of the entire Bible.

Hey Doc.... I'm interested to get your response on this...

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Let me give you a hint... Everything you read in the bible is connected... each part connects to a whole ... If you take one verse and exalt it over everything else... you will get a catholic view...

---

You really do not understand the Catholic view/position on anything, Doc. If you did you would realize how absolutely stupid your assertions are.

Let's take John 6 as a case in point and let's look at how the Catholic position is "connected" and fits into the Bible and how the Catholic view is perfectly in context with the Old and New Testaments and the words Jesus spoke in John 6....

1. Melchizedek
Gen 14: Melchizedek, priest of the God most high and king of Salem. Guess what kind of sacrificial offerings he made...bread and wine, not flesh and blood.

Psalm 110 : also references him...You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek' ...again what was unique about this sacrificial offering???
St. Paul confirms this special order in Hebrews if you're interested.

2. Passover: surely I don't elaborate on how the Passover meal is perfectly foreshadowing Christ...but remember what happened to those who did not EAT the LAMB.

Also, did you know that every year when Jews celebrated the Passover they regarded themselves as having been there at the original night themselves? Even centuries later? Much like we Catholics believe that at every Mass we participate in the one Eucharist offered by Christ himself and brought to us through his holy church by his priests of the order of Melchizedek.

3. Manna: Bread and Flesh from Heaven - real food and real nourishment for the journey.

Exodus 25: the Bread of the Presence that was to be perpetually before the Lord in the Tabernacle.

Read these, and then read John 6, and then read what St. Paul believed and taught, and then come back and lol/haha and tell me how us stupid Catholics have it all wrong.

One more thing....the Manna was real heavenly bread. If the Eucharist was merely symbolic, then the Manna would be greater which would violate basic Biblical typology. The New Testament fulfillment is ALWAYS greater than the OT prefiguration....

Quote:

---

you will get the idea of "keys" to heaven.... and a brand new doctrine...

if you interpret one part of the bible without considering the other part... you will get skewed representations...

If you read the bible without understanding its purpose... you will get a skewed representation...

If i just picked up a bible and read a verse... who knows what i would come up with...

Just like if i picked up moby dick and read a line i would come up with a synopsis of the story that is completely off..

---

I could do the same exercise for the keys....provide the OT foundation, show Christ's explicit words, and the NT validation of our position in practice....but you provide nothing. Nada. Zilch To support your position so I don't think it's worth the time.

---

Tldr

But let me say this... Are all the Catholics before 1200 ad not saved because the idea of transubstantiation was not created yet?

Faithful Ag said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Tldr

But let me say this... Are all the Catholics before 1200 ad not saved because the idea of transubstantiation was not created yet?

---

That is your response? TLDR? You lob bombs about how Catholics don't understand the Bible and supposedly take things out of context. Then context is provided going all the way back to GENESIS and your reply is TLDR? That is pathetic.

Transubstantiation was not created in 1200. It goes back to the beginning. The idea has always been there but it was formally defined. There is a big difference.

---

lets be honest... it was never out there...

logic has always been the enemy of Catholics... hth

Faithful... context provided back to genesis... please.. you have no clue what you are talking about... go do a hailmary...

AggieRain said:

---

Faithful,
Doc is a troll and not even Christian. I suspect an atheist with an Evangelical background and Catholic daddy issues. You are one of the best posters on this board. No need to drag yourself further through the mud with this joker...

---

daddy daddy where oh where are you.. i will forever be warped and not the same! lol

aggie rain ... you are the man!!!

Doc Daneeka said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Faithful,
Doc is a troll and not even Christian. I suspect an atheist with an Evangelical background and Catholic daddy issues. You are one of the best posters on this board. No need to drag yourself further through the mud with this joker...

---

daddy daddy where oh where are you.. i will forever be warped and not the same! lol

aggie rain ... you are the man!!!

---

TLDR...lol... giggles...

AggieRain said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Faithful,
Doc is a troll and not even Christian. I suspect an atheist with an Evangelical background and Catholic daddy issues. You are one of the best posters on this board. No need to drag yourself further through the mud with this joker...

---

daddy daddy where oh where are you.. i will forever be warped and not the same! lol

aggie rain ... you are the man!!!

---

TLDR...lol... giggles...

---

isnt there an ankle sock somewehere callin you lol

brosephus...