RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God

[tealblue]

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Verse 64 is not talking about the bread of life being spiritual. Its talking of christs spirit giving life and our flesh profiting nothing. he's not referencing the bread of life because if he was he would be saying that his flesh profits nothing. Jesus would never say that his flesh profits nothing and that my friend would be blasphemous. You can't just rearange words and make them say anything you want. St ignatius in 110 AD confirmed the belief that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of jesus.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Verse 64 is not talking about the bread of life being spiritual. Its talking of christs spirit giving life and our flesh profiting nothing. he's not referencing the bread of life because if he was he would be saying that his flesh profits nothing. Jesus would never say that his flesh profits nothing and that my friend would be blasphemous. You can't just rearange words and make them say anything you want. St ignatius in 110 AD confirmed the belief that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of jesus.

You said these are the words of Ignatius: Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Taken from a spiritual point of view Ignatius has only said what John the Beloved reported that Christ said. Show me where Ignatius said he wanted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, whether in wafer form or in physical form.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by RGS

Taken from a spiritual point of view Ignatius has only said what John the Beloved reported that Christ said. Show me where Ignatius said he wanted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, whether in wafer form or in physical form.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:

Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:

Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by vladimir998

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:

Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:

Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

If I were interested in doing more study of Ignatius, I would need the Greek texts that had not been handled or interpreted by RCC employees. The word Eucharist, as used by the RCC, has nothing to do with the Greek word eucharisteo/ia/os that is translated into gladness/thankfulness/thankful in the New Testament. The use of the word "Eucharist" by the RCC has taken on a new meaning from its original meaning in the Greek. If an RCC employee has made a corrupt translation of Ignatius' writings, that would be in line with their other deceptions. So, I can't take your word for what Ignatius said as your translation relates. Because in 110 AD, the RCC definition of "Eucharist" did not exist in the Greek language of that era. So, if Ignatius only had the word eucharisteo (which means gladness) available to him in the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods, how could he use it to describe the current day RCC "Eucharist"? Simple answer, he could not.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by RGS

If I were interested in doing more study of Ignatius, I would need the Greek texts that had not been handled or interpreted by RCC employees.

Uh, RGS, those same letters were translated by a Protestant. They read the same, for instance, in Cyril Richardson's translation.

CR trans:

"They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. "

What I posted:

" They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again."

It's almost EXACTLY the same.

How about the next quote? Well, let's see shall we?

CR's trans:

"You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes.  2Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

What I posted:

"Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

It's almost EXACTLY the same.

Next one.

CR's trans.:

"Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God's will."

What I posted:

"Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God."

Almost exactly the same. Imagine that. So, a real Protestant scholar, who knew more than you ever will, effectively translated just as I posted it.

Originally Posted by RGS

The word Eucharist, as used by the RCC, has nothing to do with the Greek word eucharisteo/ia/os that is translated into gladness/thankfulness/thankful in the New Testament. The use of the word "Eucharist" by the RCC has taken on a new meaning from its original meaning in the Greek.

Protestants - who aren't sciolists about Christianity as you are - recognize "Eucharist" in its literal Greek meaning and in it's relation to THE Eucharist.

Originally Posted by RGS

If an RCC employee has made a corrupt translation of Ignatius' writings, that would be in line with their other deceptions. So, I can't take your word for what Ignatius said as your translation relates.

RGS, you are making the saddest excuses I have seen on the part of an anti-Catholic in quite some time. Congratulations. You have entered the realm of anti-Catholic irrelevancy. Protestants translate the relevant quotes the same way as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do.

Originally Posted by RGS

Because in 110 AD, the RCC definition of "Eucharist" did not exist in the Greek language of that era. So, if Ignatius only had the word eucharisteo (which means gladness) available to him in the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods, how could he use it to describe the current day RCC "Eucharist"? Simple answer, he could not.

Uh, RGS, as CR makes clear, the work Eucharist already meant THE EUCHARIST when St. Ignatius was writing. You lose. How embarr***ing.


St. Justin Martyr wrote:


"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155

St. Irenaeus wrote:

"[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.

"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

[RGS]

More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

[vladimir998]

As expected, RGS failed:

Originally Posted by RGS

More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted.

RGS, as an anti-Catholic, and poorly educated in all things about Christianity, is reduced to attcking me rather than dealing with what I posted. He is then dismissive about the evidence I posted because he can't refute it. This is what anti-Catholics MUST do to save face and protect their own wounded egos as they repeatedly fail to refute the evidence put before them.

Originally Posted by RGS

It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers.

See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted, RGS is reduced to whining that the word Eucharist didn't mean THE Eucharist. This is a completely inept argument as anyone can tell since words naturally develop meanings when used in ***ociation with things. RGS, however, cannot admit this even though everyone knows it is how words organically develop.

Originally Posted by RGS

The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Clearly it did - as I posted and as RGS has now failed (again) to refute.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by vladimir998

See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted,

Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you. Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.

[vladimir998]

RGS,

unable to actually deal with the irrefutable evidence I posted, went all paranoid:

Originally Posted by RGS

Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you.

You're simply being dishonest. I already refuted your opening thread in the very second post of the thread. On that issue you did not recover. You just kept making excuses. I specifically rejoined the thread because I was shocked at how poorly you understood St. Ignatius of Antioch. You were easily refuted on that point as well. You have not recovered at all from that. And now you're just embarr***ing yourself by falsely claiming I, "Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you."

No, it is you who refuses to address the evidence put before you. About St. Ignatius, you can only lamely say you need to see the Greek - that's the excuse you use to get out of dealing with evidence that destroys your points or claims.

Originally Posted by RGS

Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.

No, actually I am quite successful, while you are not only failing but post things that echo a disturbing paranoia common to poorly educated, sciolist anti-Catholics: "Typical Jesuit approach."

It will only get worse. As your failure here becomes more manifest, the person you really are will become ever more clear in your posts. The hatred of God, His Church and Catholics that you feel, the bitterness and frustration over your own failings in life and your inability to post even the most basic arguments or refute even the most basic of truths will cause you to lash out ever more irrationally. The paranoia you express is just the beginning.

And please note, you still have entirely failed to deal with the your utter and complete failure on St. Ignatius.

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by RGS

More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

I know alot of people who left the Catholic church for various reasons mostly because the Catholic church lacks the euphoria, senationalism and good feelings the new modern churches do.Its real easy to look at writings of the early church and say that something didn't mean what it did back then. I've read the writings and they look Catholic to me. I read them before I became Catholic and I was disurbed at what I read. I became Catholic because I had to, not because I wanted to. Basically because of acidemic honesty. Your grasping at straws at this point.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

I know alot of people who left the Catholic church for various reasons mostly because the Catholic church lacks the euphoria, senationalism and good feelings the new modern churches do.Its real easy to look at writings of the early church and say that something didn't mean what it did back then. I've read the writings and they look Catholic to me. I read them before I became Catholic and I was disurbed at what I read. I became Catholic because I had to, not because I wanted to. Basically because of acidemic honesty. Your grasping at straws at this point.

I'm grasping at nothing. I do not attend new modern churches and I certainly did not become a Christian because I had too. C.S. Lewis was reported as saying that he is a reluctant Christian. There is no such thing as a reluctant Christian. This is the very thing you have said, "I became Catholic because I had to." You and Lewis have made the same fatal flaw: rather than fall in love with the God of the Universe and accept His wooing of you, you took matters into your own hands and looked at the physical evidence, made a worldly decision (not a spiritual one), and thought you could ***ign yourself into the kingdom. But the word of God says, In John 6:44 KJV, "No man can come to me (Christ), except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Seek God on your face in prayer, Tealblue, not in the RCC dogma or from a worldly book. There is only one book that is trustworthy - the Christian Bible.

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by RGS

I'm grasping at nothing. I do not attend new modern churches and I certainly did not become a Christian because I had too. C.S. Lewis was reported as saying that he is a reluctant Christian. There is no such thing as a reluctant Christian. This is the very thing you have said, "I became Catholic because I had to." You and Lewis have made the same fatal flaw: rather than fall in love with the God of the Universe and accept His wooing of you, you took matters into your own hands and looked at the physical evidence, made a worldly decision (not a spiritual one), and thought you could ***ign yourself into the kingdom. But the word of God says, In John 6:44 KJV, "No man can come to me (Christ), except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Seek God on your face in prayer, Tealblue, not in the RCC dogma or from a worldly book. There is only one book that is trustworthy - the Christian Bible.

I never said I was a reluctant christian as I was perfectly happy where I was at. But as the evidece compounded I wasn't going to lie to myself forever. And yes I did seek God in prayer and thats where it lead me. Unbiased historians will mosly say that the Catholic church was the first christian church. And yes church meant the same back then as it does today.

Matt 18:16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18

The word church here is describing an actual governing body not just the body of christ. Notice it says THE church not a church. Anyway if you had a disagreement among believers how would you take it to the body of christ as a whole. Why would jesus even say take it to the church if he didn't have the church in mind as being authorataive.

[RGS]

Sorry Tealblue, I had my hopes up that you would be one RC who actually was interested in truth. Since you are insisting that the RCC is your god, then I can be of no further help to you. I told you the truth. It is not my *** to make you believe it.

[tealblue]

I appreciate your motives, and I truly believe you are sincere.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

I appreciate your motives, and I truly believe you are sincere.

Yes I am sincere.

[alanmolstad]

The catholic church does not teach that men becomes gods.....thats just silly

[Illya_Kuryakin]

Originally Posted by RGS

Sorry Tealblue, I had my hopes up that you would be one RC who actually was interested in truth. Since you are insisting that the RCC is your god, then I can be of no further help to you. I told you the truth. It is not my *** to make you believe it.

RGS is your name Mike? You sound an awful like an anti-catholic who used to post on here and had alot of inner turmoil and anger toward Catholics in general. Your "arguments" sound alot like this person in that they contain no logic or common rationale.

Just curious.


Illya

[RGS]

Originally Posted by Illya_Kuryakin

RGS is your name Mike? You sound an awful like an anti-catholic who used to post on here and had alot of inner turmoil and anger toward Catholics in general. Your "arguments" sound alot like this person in that they contain no logic or common rationale.

Just curious.


Illya

Short memory Illya, Mike had difficulty in spelling, unlike you who has difficulty in thinking. Have I displayed a difficulty with spelling?

[Illya_Kuryakin]

Originally Posted by RGS

More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Vlad has already refuted you on this point and it's clear that you are not familir with language and semantics in general. Just the comment that you make "not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time" makes it clear that you don't understand how words are used. There are words that are used to translate the New Testament that were not "used' back then. However they were able to get the same point across. You don't sound like you understand textual criticism.

Kind of a ******.

Illya