RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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

[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

[Illya_Kuryakin]

Originally Posted by RGS

Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from. If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what? The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:


Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.

Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god. Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such? Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not what I meant, have no leg to stand upon. Duh, let's see, how does the jingle go: I know you believe you understood what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. RCC double talk.

But, Vlad, this brings up a very interesting comparison. You claim I am taking these plain statements out of context, therefore, these statements do not mean what they plainly say. If this is so, then why do you take two statements out of context and claim they mean exacting what they say in the physical, when in context they do not mean a eucharist at all? Namely John 6:55-56

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

As I have noticed you remind of this fellow Michael who used to post on here and in fact i am almost positive you are the same person.

Illya

[tealblue]

I don't think its mike but I did read about an interesting side note is that in the jewish culture Jesus would never have used eat my flesh as a metaphore because that term is offensive, even today for muslims. But anyway it doesn't sound like mike. I don't remember him quoting scripture much. He was more into quoting jack chick type stuff.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by tealblue

I don't think its mike but I did read about an interesting side note is that in the jewish culture Jesus would never have used eat my flesh as a metaphore because that term is offensive, even today for muslims. But anyway it doesn't sound like mike. I don't remember him quoting scripture much. He was more into quoting jack chick type stuff.

Tealblue, you're right. If you look at Psalm 27:2 in the RSV/CE or any Protestant Bible for that matter you'll see that phrases like 'eat my flesh' means to slander someone. So, when someone says Jesus was using a metaphor then He was saying "Unless you slander me you will have no life in you" which makes no sense at all!!!

This is what anti-Catholics just don't get. They don't know the Bible nearly as well as they think they do.

[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?

[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