Vatican exposures: Catholic ATS members? What say you?

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

John 6:66 does not say "this is my body", nor does it refer to that concept. John 6:63, however, DOES refer to that concept. It says : "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. " even in the Douay-Rheims version.

The Latin Vulgate is no more "the first Bible" than is the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, or any number of other translations. The Vulgate is itself a translation, and the Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate, making the D-R a translation of a translation.

The first use of numbered verses was in the Protestant Geneva Bible. Verse numbers were retroactively added to the older versions to facilitate reference after that, and verse numbering discrepancies crept in. The Douay-Rheims version I use is the Challoner Revision, which has verse numberings conforming to the other Bibles. It says, in the passages you quote:

65 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 66 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? (Douay-Rheims Bible, Challoner Revision)

The Geneva Bible says:

65 And hee saide, Therefore saide I vnto you, that no man can come vnto mee, except it be giuen vnto him of my Father. 66 From that time, many of his disciples went backe, and walked no more with him. 67 Then sayde Iesus to the twelue, Will yee also goe away? (Geneva Bible (1599))

The first Protestant Bible was the Wycliffe translation, which Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate in 1395. It follows the old Vulgate verse numbering, and says:

66 And he seide, Therfor Y seide to you, that no man may come to me, but it were youun to hym of my fadir. 67 Fro this tyme many of hise disciplis wenten abak, and wenten not now with hym. 68 Therfor Jhesus seide to the twelue, Whether ye wolen also go awei? (John Wycliffe Bible (1395))

Tyndale's translation says:

65 And he sayde: Therfore sayde I vnto you: that no man can come vnto me except it were geven vnto him of my father. 66 From that tyme many of his disciples wet backe and walked no moore with him. 67 Then sayde Iesus to the twelve: will ye alsoo goo awaye? (William Tyndale Bible (1525/1530))

The American King James Bible says:

65 And he said, Therefore said I to you, that no man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away? (American King James Version)

So you see, there is no difference in anything other than the verse numbering - they all say the same thing.

Daaaah, the point is, God is trying to get your attention, "wink" "wink"
to you all who reject the Eucharist. Satan has "you"....

666 is a telling number, wake up, it's the evil one's #. Those who disbelieved and walked away are you, you prideful Protestants. You
reject the Real Presence. The Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome's translation of the original writings and the Douay-Rheims show a different verse (John 6:67) because Roman Catholics believe Christ's words "This is My body."

Maybe, the 3rd time is the charm and you'll get it.

You write a book to go on and on, after every post. History shows the Latin Vulgate is the first Bible. Your PO is worthless and wrong neno.

There are 30,000 changes made to the King James Bible! The KJV
translators were led by a holy man (humor).

A confirmation, this is example. Our Lord shares in private revelation, without the Eucharist, you remain a "spiritual baby."

reply to post by colbe


So you write policy for Satan now, as well as God? Just a point of information for you - you can't give me to Satan, since you do not own me to give me away.

I'm not into Numerology or any other forms of necromancy, so the number 666 means nothing to me beyond what it symbolizes in Revelations, which is the Roman Emperor.

The Douay-Rheims shows precisely the same thing as the other versions, with a sightly different numbering system in the older, obsolete versions. Same information, shifted numbers on it. I made that abundantly clear by quoting precisely the same passage from a number of different versions going all the way back to 1395.

You may want to examine the possibility of removing that beam from your own eye before "correcting" those "prideful" Protestants, considering you think you guard the only gatehouse on the only road to Heaven. That strikes me as a bit "prideful" in itself.

The Latin Vulgate is NOT the "first Bible". THAT is what the unbiased version of history shows. You remind me of an old Baptist preacher I once knew in that stubborn insistence - he claimed that the King James version was the "original Bible", and seems a bit put out when I educated him otherwise. Perhaps you may be able to absorb that knowledge with more grace. Don't take my word for it - search out the history of the Bible for yourself. I suggest starting with the real original autographs, and working your way out the branches from there.

I have no idea how many "changes", or of what nature they are, are in the King James Bible, since I never read it any more, I've never bothered to count them. The KJV is antiquated, and there are much better, more accurate translations available now that are far truer to the original texts, many of which have been rediscovered since the time of the King James translators.

Originally posted by colbe
...
Daaaah, the point is, God is trying to get your attention, "wink" "wink"
to you all who reject the Eucharist. Satan has "you"....

666 is a telling number, wake up, it's the evil one's #. Those who disbelieved and walked away are you, you prideful Protestants. You
reject the Real Presence. The Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome's translation of the original writings and the Douay-Rheims show a different verse (John 6:67) because Roman Catholics believe Christ's words "This is My body."

Maybe, the 3rd time is the charm and you'll get it.

You write a book to go on and on, after every post. History shows the Latin Vulgate is the first Bible. Your PO is worthless and wrong neno.

There are 30,000 changes made to the King James Bible! The KJV
translators were led by a holy man (humor).

A confirmation, this is example. Our Lord shares in private revelation, without the Eucharist, you remain a "spiritual baby."

Almost all Protestant churches have communion. Some have communion every week and some have it once a month and some have it once a year, but almost all Protestant churches have communion. I think a Protestant who believes communion is a solemn ceremony to remember the sacrifice, love, and promises of Jesus is doing better than most people who take communion. When you think of communion as a product (Jesus' body and blood) created from necessary ingredients such as the Church, the priest, the prayers, the beliefs/preparations of the parishioners, etc. then you turn it into magic instead of a miracle. You treat Jesus as a magic medicine instead of your Lord. That's disgusting if you really think about it.

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by colbe
...
Daaaah, the point is, God is trying to get your attention, "wink" "wink"
to you all who reject the Eucharist. Satan has "you"....

666 is a telling number, wake up, it's the evil one's #. Those who disbelieved and walked away are you, you prideful Protestants. You
reject the Real Presence. The Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome's translation of the original writings and the Douay-Rheims show a different verse (John 6:67) because Roman Catholics believe Christ's words "This is My body."

Maybe, the 3rd time is the charm and you'll get it.

You write a book to go on and on, after every post. History shows the Latin Vulgate is the first Bible. Your PO is worthless and wrong neno.

There are 30,000 changes made to the King James Bible! The KJV
translators were led by a holy man (humor).

A confirmation, this is example. Our Lord shares in private revelation, without the Eucharist, you remain a "spiritual baby."

Almost all Protestant churches have communion. Some have communion every week and some have it once a month and some have it once a year, but almost all Protestant churches have communion. I think a Protestant who believes communion is a solemn ceremony to remember the sacrifice, love, and promises of Jesus is doing better than most people who take communion. When you think of communion as a product (Jesus' body and blood) created from necessary ingredients such as the Church, the priest, the prayers, the beliefs/preparations of the parishioners, etc. then you turn it into magic instead of a miracle. You treat Jesus as a magic medicine instead of your Lord. That's disgusting if you really think about it.

edit on 2-4-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

It isn't magic cloudyday, the Eucharist is a gift from God. It is God
Himself. You can't seem to grasp, the Eucharist is supernatural, it's
not canabalism.

It is Our Lord's choice to come to be in you in this manner but you
do not believe. If you really are Orthodox or were you should have
some understanding. Our Orthodox brothers and sisters have valid
Sacraments.

God is trying to wake Protestant KJV readers up, their disbelief is
the same as some Our Lord's first disciples who walked away, they
did not understand and accept on faith this gift of God Himself.
Satan laughs, John 6:66 is his number. Go read for yourself how that verse is numbered different in the KJV than is written in the Douay-Rheims Bible. www.drbo.org...

Actually, Satan believes Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist. How ironic. Remember, Black Masses and desecration of the Eucharist by Satanists.

Come to believe, who cares about juice and crackers, they're of no value.
The Great Warning is soon.

reply to post by colbe


It becomes "magic" when you ceremonialize it, and think you can order Jesus to make an appearance at your summons because of your muttering incantations over a bit of cracker. This is the same thing those who summon demons do.

In your second paragraph, where you say "It is Our Lord's choice to come to be in you in this manner", are you saying that Jesus is only with Catholics during the Summoning of Communion? The Protestants have him around all the time.

Your interpretation of John 6:66 and the surrounding verses is odd, awkward, and reaching. it does not accord with the context in which the passage is delivered, which I posted above in it's entirety from several Bible versions - the Douay-Rheims included.

You are right - juice and crackers are of no intrinsic value in themselves - even after you mutter incantations over them to summon a spirit in physical form.

From everything I've been able to find in the matter, your "Great Warning" is just snake oil being sold by charlatans. Buy into it at your own risk.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

It becomes "magic" when you ceremonialize it, and think you can order Jesus to make an appearance at your summons because of your muttering incantations over a bit of cracker. This is the same thing those who summon demons do.

In your second paragraph, where you say "It is Our Lord's choice to come to be in you in this manner", are you saying that Jesus is only with Catholics during the Summoning of Communion? The Protestants have him around all the time.

Your interpretation of John 6:66 and the surrounding verses is odd, awkward, and reaching. it does not accord with the context in which the passage is delivered, which I posted above in it's entirety from several Bible versions - the Douay-Rheims included.

You are right - juice and crackers are of no intrinsic value in themselves - even after you mutter incantations over them to summon a spirit in physical form.
From everything I've been able to find in the matter, your "Great Warning" is just snake oil being sold by charlatans. Buy into it at your own risk.

Tell me, is that why you spend days, now weeks here protesting the faith and Catholic prophecy? LOL.

It would be the fourth time giving evidence God has left a "sign" for our disbelieving Protestants. Nah, just read John 6:66 in the KJV Bible.


Our Lord said, one remains a "spiritual baby" without the Eucharist.

reply to post by colbe


I spend days, week, months, and even years combating error wherever and whenever I find it. I do not "protest the faith", I protest perversions of it, wherever I find them. Catholic or Protestant makes no difference if the doctrine is in error. As far as "prophecy" goes, I call out hoaxes - that's what I do. I wrote a book about a hoax which was exposed here at ATS, trying to warn an even wider audience and alert them to the hoaxers - there is a link to it in my signature. Your mumbling, haltingly-worded "prophets" are in the same category.

They are hoaxers, preying on the gullibility of people who want to believe, and who are fearful and uncertain of the final disposition of their own souls.

I've already debunked your "sign from God" via attempted numerology involving the numbering of Bible verses. I won't address it again, because I'm simply repeating the same truth over and over. Your continual challenge to that truth, without addressing the facts in the debunking, will not make it any less true.

Jesus (the same which you claim as "Lord", while at the same time twisting his words) never mentioned a "eucharist", much less ever condemned anyone to spiritual infancy in it's absence. I think by "eucharist" you must mean something more than mere communion, and such an expansion is insupportable using Jesus' own words. He said "do this in remembrance of Me", not "eat me or stay in a spiritual cradle".

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

I spend days, week, months, and even years combating error wherever and whenever I find it. I do not "protest the faith", I protest perversions of it, wherever I find them. Catholic or Protestant makes no difference if the doctrine is in error. As far as "prophecy" goes, I call out hoaxes - that's what I do. I wrote a book about a hoax which was exposed here at ATS, trying to warn an even wider audience and alert them to the hoaxers - there is a link to it in my signature. Your mumbling, haltingly-worded "prophets" are in the same category.

They are hoaxers, preying on the gullibility of people who want to believe, and who are fearful and uncertain of the final disposition of their own souls.

I've already debunked your "sign from God" via attempted numerology involving the numbering of Bible verses. I won't address it again, because I'm simply repeating the same truth over and over. Your continual challenge to that truth, without addressing the facts in the debunking, will not make it any less true.

Jesus (the same which you claim as "Lord", while at the same time twisting his words) never mentioned a "eucharist", much less ever condemned anyone to spiritual infancy in it's absence. I think by "eucharist" you must mean something more than mere communion, and such an expansion is insupportable using Jesus' own words. He said "do this in remembrance of Me", not "eat me or stay in a spiritual cradle".

You will remain a "spiritual baby" until the Great Warning neno, you do
not understand. Most of Christianity believes in the Eucharist.

The "spiritual baby" description comes from Our Lord in the prophetic and you're wrong, Jesus states you must "eat me" as you put it disrespectfully four times in John 6.

There were many of His disciples who said, when they heard it, This is strange talk, who can be expected to listen to it?” (Jn 6:61). These were His disciples, people who already were used to His remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life” (Jn 6:64). But He knew some did not believe, including the one who was to betray Him. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away.) “After this, many of His disciples went back to their own ways, and walked no more in His company” (Jn 6:67, John 6:66 in Protestant Bibles).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of Him, and His disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol.

But He did not correct these first protesters, these proto-Protestants. Twelve times He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four times He said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood”. John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper — and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.



God bless you neno,


colbe

reply to post by colbe


Here is something to think about:

And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
And he puzzled three hours, `till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"

How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Dr. Seuss

reply to post by colbe

Satan laughs, John 6:66 is his number. Go read for yourself how that verse is numbered different in the KJV than is written in the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Yeah, and hotels never have a 13th floor.
Superstition and magic have never left the RCC....and they were the tools used to gather the 'heathens', who were pretty attached to their pagan gods and seasonal festivals, believed in sorcery (among their own communities), and wanted supernatural stuff....that's what drew them in.

It would be natural to suppose that the superstitions which flourished luxuriantly in the Middle Ages would be unable to sustain themselves in the clearer atmosphere of the twentieth century. "We shall have no repetition of mediæval miracles," says W. F. Cobb with some show of conviction,1 "for the simple reason that faith in God has ousted credulity in nature."

When we speak thus, however, we are reckoning without the church of Rome. For the church of Rome, while existing in the twentieth century, is not of it. As Yrjö Hirn crisply puts it:2 "The Catholic Church is a Middle Age which has survived into the twentieth century."

Why is it, colbe, that many cathedrals have gargoyles on them....have pagan designs incorporated? Do you know? I do.

It is possible that we very commonly underestimate the marvellousness of the world with which the heathen imagination surrounded itself, crippled as it was by its ignorance of natural law, and inflamed by the most incredible superstition.
Perhaps we equally underestimate the extent to which this heathen view of the world passed over into the church. Th. Trede bids us keep well in mind that Christianity did not bring belief in miracles into the world; it found it there. ....

See? It was like that where they went as they "spread their mission"....they didn't invent it. They just used it.

Trede continues:8 "In the third century religious belief was steeped in belief in miracles. In their thinking and in their believing men floated in a world of miracles like a fish in water. The more miraculous a story the more readily it found believing acceptance.

There was no question of criticism, however timid; the credulity of even educated people reached an unheard-of measure, as well as the number of those who, as deceived or deceivers, no longer knew how to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Those of the old faith (the heathen) had no doubt of the miracles of those of the new faith (the Christians), and vice versa. The whole population of the Roman Empire was caught in a gigantic net of superstition, the product of the combined work of East and West.

EDIT: Here's the source: COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES

BY
BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1918
See that? Almost 100 years ago....they knew this..they'd known it since the third century...
and you somehow are still not knowing it. wow.
It's free to read online, colbe, although it's, um, a book. Way longer than neno's "book in every post". Therefore, we are here to give you the Cliff's notes version (that means the basic summary).

reply to post by colbe

He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life” (Jn 6:64).

Yep. Right there...
he warned them not to think carnally...
he TOLD THEM IT WAS A METAPHOR!!

"the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life"
THE WORDS, colbe, are life. The flesh is of no avail!!

ee gads. *facepalm*

If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out?

Yeah, busted up your sentences. I only want to reply to this question. If you can't track the thoughts without having your entire post quoted, wasting bandwidth, that's a shame. I am able to do so. You asked the above question.
He was frustrated and tired of trying. Perhaps he knew they weren't smart enough to really get it, and therefore he did not feel they were up to the task at hand...which was to spread the word.

He himself was an Essene master...in recruiting disciples, he would certainly have weeded out those unable to follow along.

Only the most gifted and dedicated pupils are accepted as masters in the Eastern traditions. .... just as a graduate student is weeded out early when they sign up for an education to become a Master now (yes, I watched a lot of my classmates fail to make the grade...and so were dumped from the program).

A definite demonstrated ability to grasp the concepts is imperative. The professors (Jesus) readily 'fail' any student (disciple) who they deem is out of their league in the effort, and whose work indicates as much.

reply to post by colbe

Catholics believe Our Lord's words.

No, Catholics believe the Roman Catholic Church's words. And guess where those came from?

Every religious possession the heathen had, indeed, the Christians, it may be said broadly, transferred to themselves and made their own. As one of the results, the whole body of heathen legends, in one way or another, reproduced themselves on Christian ground.

Try to pay attention now, colbe. The guy was writing in 1918 about far, far older concepts that have haunted the RCC since its inception.

The remarkable studies of the Christian legends which Heinrich Günter has given us,24 enable us to assure ourselves of the fact of this transference, and to observe its process in the large.

On sketching the legendary material found in the pagan writers, he exclaims:25 "After this survey it will be seen that there is not much left for the Middle Ages to invent. They only present the same ideas in variations and Christianized forms, and perhaps also expanded on one side or another. There is no doubt as to the agreement of the conceptions."

"With the sixth century," he says again,26 "we find the whole ancient system of legends Christianized, not only as anonymous and unlocalized vagrants, but more and more condensed, in a unitary picture, into a logical group of conceptions, and connected with real relations of historical personalities, whose historical figures they overlie. . . . The transference of the legend became now the chief thing, the saint of history gave way to that of the popular desire." "Hellenism — Pythagoreanism — Neo-Platonism — Christian Middle Ages,"—thus he sums up27—"the parallelism of these has made it very clear that the legend in the grotesque forms of a Nicholas Peregrinus or Keivinos or of the Mary legend is not a specifically Christian thing."

Still with me? Almost done with this post, for your comfort.

In one word, what we find, when we cast our eye over the whole body of Christian legends, growing up from the third century down through the Middle Ages, is merely a reproduction, in Christian form, of the motives, and even the very incidents, which already meet us in the legends of heathendom. ...

We do not speak now of the bodily taking over of heathen gods and goddesses and the transformation of them into Christian saints; or of the invention of saints to be the new bearers of locally persisting legends; or of the mere transference to Christianity of entire heathen legends, such as that of Barlaam and Joasaph, which nobody nowadays doubts is just the story of Buddha.28

What we have in mind at the moment is the complete reproduction in the conception-world of the Christian legends of what is already found in the heathen. In this respect the two are precise duplicates.

We may still, no doubt, raise the question of the ultimate origin of this conception-world. That, remarks Günter, "is not determined by the fact that it is the common possession of all. In the last analysis," he declares,29 "it has come out of the belief of mankind in the other world. It is scarcely possible now to determine how old it is, or where it originated. The manner in which it flowered, and especially in which it discharged itself into Christianity, however, gives an intimation also of the explanation of its first origin."

It is this mass of legends, the Christianized form of the universal product of the human soul, working into concrete shape its sense of the other world, that the church of Rome has taken upon its shoulders. It is not clear that it has added anything of importance to it.30

Chew on that for a while, colbe. Try to relax and just consider it. It's not news, friend, it's just that it's been kept from you. On purpose.

Because you want it that way.

reply to post by colbe


I am content, then, to remain a "spiritual baby" - it means that I have at least been born to the spiritual. What "most of Christianity believes" is not my concern. I've never been a crowd follower, and I won't have to answer for their errors in belief which run contrary to what is plainly written. "Most people" once believed the world to be flat as well. They were in error, too. As I said much earlier, people can be sincere in their belief, and yet be sincerely wrong.

Since "The 'spiritual baby' description comes from Our Lord in the prophetic" I can safely ignore it - the fact being that I simply don't follow your "prophetic" snake oil salesmen. I am not being disrespectful when I make the remark "eat me" - it's merely a restatement of your conception of the Eucharist. Don't accuse me of being disrespectful of re-stating your position - that is exceedingly slippery ground for you.

You should read the sixth chapter of John again, perhaps for comprehension this time, rather than trying to isolate a few words out of context to attempt to make an erroneous point. Those words were not uttered in a vacuum as you present them, and the surrounding words, the context in which they reside, ALSO has meaning... a meaning which entirely refutes your contention.