...while their hierarchy burned those at the stake (Tyndale, Hus, etc.) who translated it into the native tongues of the common people.
In John Wycliffe's case, they exhumed his dead bones and burned them.
Excellent point.
...while their hierarchy burned those at the stake (Tyndale, Hus, etc.) who translated it into the native tongues of the common people.
In John Wycliffe's case, they exhumed his dead bones and burned them.
I’m sure there are Catholics who are faithful believers but the religion and doctrine seems distorted to me
The question is what Jesus are they trusting in: The one who died once for all on Calvary, or the one who dies repeatedly, day after day in the mass?
yeah I don’t think Catholics think Jesus dies again every day at least that’s nothing I’ve heard before
it’s like communion Christians take communion based on the one sacrifice that lasts through all time we remember it daily , it doesn’t mean we think Jesus is dying each day again and again
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a catholic believe that but again Im not very catholic educated. I’ve never heard them claim Jesus dies more than once though
people use it like a cannon.Let’s get something basic established here…
the word is ‘canon’ as in a standard, not ‘cannon’ as in a heavy gun.
Reminds one of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Was that stupidity or what?people use it like a cannon.![]()
Methinks that you don't even know what an ad hominem is.Your ad hominem against the character of sincere and honest Bible scholars as being deceivers is unfortunate, but noted.
Reminds one of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Was that stupidity or what?
You're kidding. That's what the mass is, a fresh sacrifice of Christ. That's what transubstantiation is all about. Why do you think Christ remains on Catholic crucifixes? They try to say it has nothing to do with a perpetual sacrifice but common sense knows better.
"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim [Jesus] is one and the same: the same [Jesus] now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."—Catholic Catechism; SECTION TWO, THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH; Article 3, THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence; Paragraph 1367.
Every time the mass is performed, Christ is sacrificed anew, only in an "unbloody" manner. But even this is misleading. The laity who partake of the Eucharist don't drink anything; the body and blood of Christ are both considered to be present in the wafer.
See also: https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/the-mass-and-the-sacrifice-of-christ/
You should educate yourself about this. Catholics view the "Eucahrist," as they call it, way differently than the Lord's Supper.
Methinks that you don't even know what an ad hominem is.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem
ad hominem
adjective
1. attacking an opponent's character or motives rather than answering the argument or claim.
2. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
I've more than answered any arguments or claims here, and I've definitely appealed to people's intellects or reason while doing so.
Anyhow, I found your comment somewhat comical in that you've seemingly been immaturely mimicking me in some of your responses. I could offer at least a couple of examples, but I won't bother.
I'm well aware of what I said and of why I said it.In post #71 you said “THIS is reality, so don't ever let anybody deceive you into believing otherwise.”
As you are surely aware, deception involves intention. You’re assigning the intention to deceive others to your opponents. In this case, the only person talking to you on this point is me.
I really couldn't care less whether you or anybody else here respects me or not. The only thing that I'm truly guilty of in our interactions is telling the truth. If that's offensive to you or others, then so be it.It’s an ad hominem against my character. Definitely lost a lot of respect for you today and I am quite surprised.
I'm well aware of what I said and of why I said it.
During my three different stints here, I've regularly linked to the following website in relation to the origin and meaning of words, so this is by no means an exception.
Here's what the word "deceive" literally means:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/deceive#etymonline_v_846
deceive (v.)
"mislead by false appearance or statement," c. 1300, from Old French decevoir "to deceive" (12c., Modern French décevoir), from Latin decipere "to ensnare, take in, beguile, cheat," from de "from" or pejorative (see de-) + combining form of capere "to take," from PIE root *kap- "to grasp." Related: Deceived; deceiver; deceiving.
As we just read, the word "deceive" literally means "to take from".
In my post, I mentioned a particular reality, and then I told everybody here to never let anybody deceive you into believing otherwise. In other words, don't ever let anybody take this reality from you, and I offer no apology whatsoever for what I said because I meant it with every fiber of my being, and I still do.
I really couldn't care less whether you or anybody else here respects me or not. The only thing that I'm truly guilty of in our interactions is telling the truth. If that's offensive to you or others, then so be it.
Anyhow, I've got to get ready for work.
Have a nice willfully ignorant life.You launched an ad hominem against my character as being a deceiver with every fiber of your being and will not apologize for it. I won’t forgive you for it unless you repent.
I’ve seen all I’ve needed to see from the likes of you. Good riddance.
You only rebuke those who have actually trespassed.Like 17:3
3Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Have a nice willfully ignorant life.
You only rebuke those who have actually trespassed.
If I were you, then I'd simply and humbly ask God who is in the wrong in our dispute and then proceed accordingly based upon his response.
You need some serious help (in more ways than one), and I sincerely hope that you find it in Christ.Oh you’ve definitely trespassed against me you’re quickly becoming my enemy because you just don’t know when to stop. A lot of people here have the gall to insult others, launch unprovoked attacks on other’s characters, but the buck stops here. I won’t be bullied or pushed around.
I'm beyond certain that God is more than pleased with the things that I actually said and meant which set off your unwarranted and childish hissy fit. Unlike you, apparently, he knows what I actually said, why I actually said it, AND the broad range of people that I was actually referring to when I said "anybody".You think God is applauding you for being divisive and bearing false witness against His people? Unbelievable.