niftydrifty vs. Felicity: The Eucharist, real or symbolic?

[niftydrifty]

yes, Lord.

ps. my post contained arguments. you dodged them, again.
pps. did I say anything that wasn't true?
ppps. your violation has been reported.

 

[Stace]

Moderator's Warning:

Normally, we don't step into Private Debates. However, I'm taking this opportunity to remind the both of you that normal forum rules are still in effect. Keep it civil, please, or your debate will be over.

 

[Felicity]

If the issue is "hypocrite."....you know...Jesus called some Pharisees a "brood of vipers." It's not wrong if it's right.

 

[niftydrifty]

If the issue is "hypocrite."....you know...Jesus called some Pharisees a "brood of vipers." It's not wrong if it's right.

I had given up on this pointless debate. Felicity, you brought me back into it, by asking if I had "ceded" it. I posted arguments in post #22. you didn't address all of them. you focused on only one point, and talked about my "style."

in post #24, I made more points that spoke directly to the topic. in your response, you addressed none of them, and instead spoke about what I did in another thread!

this is precisely why I concluded earlier that a "debate" with you is pointless.

thanks for nothing.

 

[Felicity]

thanks for nothing.

You're welcome. I'm satisfied the record of evidence (on my part) and hostility (on your part) is adequate for the most basic reader to comprehend.:2wave:

 

[niftydrifty]

You're welcome. I'm satisfied the record of evidence (on my part) and hostility (on your part) is adequate for the most basic reader to comprehend.:2wave:

The most basic reader will comprehend that you omit passages which contradict your beliefs: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." - John 6:63 ... and will also comprehend that you dodged it altogether.

even the most basic reader will comprehend that you deceive when you stated, "Jesus said that he was the bread of life come down from heaven and that to have eternal life one must LITERALLY eat his flesh and drink his blood. (John 6)" ... and yet, the emphasized word, is your own, not present in John 6.

The most basic reader will comprehend that "the Catholic Church obeys Jesus' command" is an opinion, in light of the fact that the commands are misunderstood.

The most basic reader will comprehend that it would make no sense for Christ to drink his own blood and eat his own flesh.

The most basic reader will comprehend that when you said, "The break with other churches is a scandal and a rift that Catholics pray will heal," and when I later responded to it, you actually accused me of diverting the issue. :roll:

The most basic reader will comprehend that metaphors can still exist even when the speaker doesn't later explain them or clarify them.

The most basic reader will comprehend that Paul uses the non-literal word for eating in 1 Corinthians 11, demonstrating that there isn't anything especially significant about the "literal" word "trogo."

The most basic reader will comprehend that you are playing games when you ask ridiculous questions, such as ... "how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE?" The most basic reader will comprehend, obviously, that the way it is there, is what is in question, spiritually/symbolically, or literally. this debate is about how, not if.

The most basic reader will comprehend that when I explained how I disagree with how you framed this very debate, that it was in fact, on-topic.

The most basic reader will comprehend that the commission is to "do this in remembrance of me," not "please eat my literally transubstantiated body and drink my literal transubstantiated blood."

The most basic reader will comprehend that if bread were really turning into flesh and wine into blood, then it wouldn't be referred to as a "memorial," (... "do this in remembrance of me" ...) it would instead have been called a real presence.

The most basic reader will comprehend that to say that the word trogo is "always used literally" or can "only be used literally," is false. If it were true, then there would be scientific evidence for the phenomenon of transubstantiation. But alas, there is not. And it is obvious why you do not want to go there. I believe that Christ did not lie.

The most basic reader will comprehend that I actually hadn't "characterized you as if you were being sneaky."

The most basic reader will comprehend that I had already answered the question you asked about the framing of the debate, "What does it reveal?"

The most basic reader will comprehend that depending on the context, "real" and "true" (or even "it is" or "I am") can mean various things.

The most basic reader will comprehend that an absolute statement such as "the Church itself is not heretical in any way," is absurd on its face.

The most basic reader will comprehend that when you ask me to produce substantive evidence of my "opinion" about something being a metaphor, it's absurd. Evidence for a spiritual metaphor? :lol:

The most basic reader will comprehend that your explanation of the literalness of "trogo" is flawed. you say, "a physical reality is described--NOT a spiritual reality." and yet, gnawing and chewing are no more or less physical realities than eating, planting seeds, herding sheep, catching fish, throwing stones, or washing with water.

The most basic reader will comprehend that "I have a Church with a 2000 year history of scholarship--the Bible itself was codified and maintained by the Catholic Church" is an appeal to authority, a fallacy, and a statement I later directly responded to, when you (again) cried "foul."

Even the most basic reader will comprehend that I "harp on translations" because we are obviously dealing with translated texts.

And lastly, even the most basic reader will comprehend that you so far haven't presented arguments against ALL of these points, only games. lots and lots of games.

do your games and consistent dodging of arguments mean that you cede the debate?

 

[Felicity]

The most basic reader will comprehend that you omit passages which contradict your beliefs: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." - John 6:63 ... and will also comprehend that you dodged it altogether.

Please note that you mention NOTHING of John 6:63 until JUST THIS go round—3 months after your last post...:roll:

...anyway...once again CONTEXT matters. You cannot pull a verse out and impose your desired meaning on it--you HAVE to look in CONTEXT.

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

FIRST: note that throughout all of John 6 EXCEPT verse 63, Jesus says, “my flesh” but in 63 He says “the flesh”—there is a difference, and the difference is WHOSE flesh he is referring to.

How do you interpret "the flesh" in verse 63 to be Jesus' flesh and not, rather, "human understanding?" There is Biblical reason to read "the flesh" as that of man...In John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." Jesus uses “the flesh” to indicate human understanding without the aid of Divine Grace.

To interpret verse 63 as you are claiming is to say that Jesus just freaked out a bunch of his followers and let them walk away to their spiritual doom on an equivocation of a metaphor. Would Jesus say, "hey guys...eat my flesh!" knowing that many would be disgusted and repulsed by interpreting Him to literally mean “eat (with your mouth) His flesh”—and further—that they would be so disgusted and repulsed that they abandon Him who is the Messiah?.....You would have us believe Jesus has some sick sense of humor in that after many left to their spiritual doom, He says to his buddies who stayed despite their utter dismay, "Naw......I was just kiddin'" Does the Christ you know do that? Is Jesus out to trick people into spiritual bankruptcy based on ignorance? That's not MY Christ, ...but I'll explain even further...

If CHRIST'S LITERAL flesh profits us nothing—as to read the verse as you suggest states--then His death on the Cross profits nothing. It was His flesh that was sacrificed. Jesus was the Paschal Lamb. Do you think that's what Christ is saying in John 63—that his death on the Cross is of no avail?

Lastly—nowhere in the Bible is the word “spirit” ever used to mean “symbol.” Since (as you have repeatedly pointed out) the “spiritual reality” is every bit as much real as the physical reality—how can you turn around and NOW claim “spirit” means to imply something that is merely representative of an actual reality but not a reality itself (as metaphorical/symbolic language acts)?!

This claim flies in the face of your other claim that the “real food” Jesus refers to is “real” in the spiritual sense only. Either it IS real in some sense--spiritual or physical or both.....or.....it's not and only symbolic. You cannot hold it it real and not real at the same time.

The Catholic view of the Eucharist is that it is, in fact, real in BOTH senses—the physical reality AND the spiritual reality. Therefore—even if the word “spirit” in verse 64 meant the “spiritual reality,” as it applies to JESUS' flesh (which I don't believe it does because Jesus is making a point concerning true believers in HIS word rather than their own understanding) it is not contrary to Catholic doctrine.

The most basic reader will comprehend that Paul uses the non-literal word for eating in 1 Corinthians 11, demonstrating that there isn't anything especially significant about the "literal" word "trogo."

Jesus was making an emphatic point to make sure there was NO MISUNDERSTANDING as to what He was saying. By the time Paul is instructing on the Eucharist, the teaching was well known—Paul did not have to use the emphatic term and could simply say eat—because the Church believed the words of Christ in John 6.

The most basic reader will comprehend that you are playing games when you ask ridiculous questions, such as ... "how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE?" The most basic reader will comprehend, obviously, that the way it is there, is what is in question, spiritually/symbolically, or literally. this debate is about how, not if.

Again—NOWHERE does “spiritual" EVER mean symbolic. PERIOD. And for you to claim it does undermines your assertion (which I happen to agree with) that the spiritual reality is REAL...You can’t have spirit mean two opposite things and claim you don’t hold contradictory views.

The most basic reader will comprehend that when I explained how I disagree with how you framed this very debate, that it was in fact, on-topic.

You set up the debate—I don’t even know how to...so how you can accuse me of framing it any way is just bizarre.:tocktock2

The most basic reader will comprehend that when you ask me to produce substantive evidence of my "opinion" about something being a metaphor, it's absurd. Evidence for a spiritual metaphor? :lol:

I thought you said “spiritual” WAS real? I agree with that—are you now saying it’s NOT?

By the way—it can be done...I showed you how when I addressed the ACTUAL metaphors you supplied by quoting them in context and showing where the metaphor was made clear.


Your hostility demonstrates you feel you are in a position of weakness and so need to be derisive and offensive. I do not feel the need to reciprocate. I answer only to demonstrate your flawed reasoning for those who may question the verse you offered to counter the “flesh” question.

 

[niftydrifty]

Felicity, you dodged the following:

even the most basic reader will comprehend that you deceive when you stated, "Jesus said that he was the bread of life come down from heaven and that to have eternal life one must LITERALLY eat his flesh and drink his blood. (John 6)" ... and yet, the emphasized word, is your own, not present in John 6.

The most basic reader will comprehend that "the Catholic Church obeys Jesus' command" is an opinion, in light of the fact that the commands are misunderstood.

The most basic reader will comprehend that it would make no sense for Christ to drink his own blood and eat his own flesh.

The most basic reader will comprehend that when you said, "The break with other churches is a scandal and a rift that Catholics pray will heal," and when I later responded to it, you actually accused me of diverting the issue.

The most basic reader will comprehend that metaphors can still exist even when the speaker doesn't later explain them or clarify them.

The most basic reader will comprehend that the commission is to "do this in remembrance of me," not "please eat my literally transubstantiated body and drink my literal transubstantiated blood."

The most basic reader will comprehend that if bread were really turning into flesh and wine into blood, then it wouldn't be referred to as a "memorial," (... "do this in remembrance of me" ...) it would instead have been called a real presence.

The most basic reader will comprehend that I actually hadn't "characterized you as if you were being sneaky."

The most basic reader will comprehend that I had already answered the question you asked about the framing of the debate, "What does it reveal?"

The most basic reader will comprehend that depending on the context, "real" and "true" (or even "it is" or "I am") can mean various things.

The most basic reader will comprehend that an absolute statement such as "the Church itself is not heretical in any way," is absurd on its face.

The most basic reader will comprehend that your explanation of the literalness of "trogo" is flawed. you say, "a physical reality is described--NOT a spiritual reality." and yet, gnawing and chewing are no more or less physical realities than eating, planting seeds, herding sheep, catching fish, throwing stones, or washing with water.

The most basic reader will comprehend that "I have a Church with a 2000 year history of scholarship--the Bible itself was codified and maintained by the Catholic Church" is an appeal to authority, a fallacy, and a statement I later directly responded to, when you (again) cried "foul."

Even the most basic reader will comprehend that I "harp on translations" because we are obviously dealing with translated texts.

I'd especially like to hear your response to this:

The most basic reader will comprehend that to say that the word trogo is "always used literally" or can "only be used literally," is false. If it were true, then there would be scientific evidence for the phenomenon of transubstantiation. But alas, there is not. And it is obvious why you do not want to go there. I believe that Christ did not lie.

It's obvious why you consistently dodge that one.

Respond to my posts, without picking and choosing, and I'll gladly do the same.

 

[Felicity]

Felicity, you dodged the following:

even the most basic reader will comprehend that you deceive when you stated, "Jesus said that he was the bread of life come down from heaven and that to have eternal life one must LITERALLY eat his flesh and drink his blood. (John 6)" ... and yet, the emphasized word, is your own, not present in John 6.

As you are apparently unaware, it is customary in a debate to lay out the specific position one is presenting. My contention is that Jesus said to LITERALLY eat His flesh. And then I went on to explain basic Catholic belief concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. After that post, I presented the basis for my position and offered ample evidence to support my view. Your nonsense was from the get-go. I responded to your assertions despite your lack of presenting your own debate position originally and your failure to engage the actual points I made. Perhaps it would be wise to familiarize yourself with debate ettiquette before you attempt another.

 

[niftydrifty]

As you are apparently unaware, it is customary in a debate to lay out the specific position one is presenting. My contention is that Jesus said to LITERALLY eat His flesh. And then I went on to explain basic Catholic belief concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. After that post, I presented the basis for my position and offered ample evidence to support my view. Your nonsense was from the get-go. I responded to your assertions despite your lack of presenting your own debate position originally and your failure to engage the actual points I made. Perhaps it would be wise to familiarize yourself with debate ettiquette before you attempt another.

I thought so. More games.

And I've refuted every point you've made.

There is no real/literal/physical evidence for your alleged real/literal/physical phenomenon. Therefore, your position has been demonstrated to be bunk. I've brought it up at least three times now, and every time, you've declined to address it. See you around.

 

[Felicity]

I thought so. More games.

And I've refuted every point you've made.

There is no real/literal/physical evidence for your alleged real/literal/physical phenomenon. Therefore, your position has been demonstrated to be bunk. I've brought it up at least three times now, and every time, you've declined to address it. See you around.

Eucharistic Miracles? You want Eucharistic Miracles?...The words of the Early Church Fathers, the evidence of logic and reason and consistency among verses of the Bible...The very words of Christ Himself are not enough for you, ...

....but a documented scientific examination of an Eucharistic Miracle--which Catholics are not even bound to believe as being authentic--is gonna give you pause. Whatever?!:roll:

You have heard the verse about putting God to the test, haven't you? Your "requirement" of scientific proof is just that--a test.

These miracles are not for the skeptics--they are for the building up of the faithful. I believe you want to shift to this aspect because you see that it is easy to question the veracity of such claims. It's really irrelevant.

Regardless--the fact remains that the BIBLE itself tells us in the words Christ spoke that his words were NOT metaphorical in John 6 when he said "trogo". I gave you the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT. Since I am supplying links to these Miracles, are you going to address the linguistic FACTS of the applicable Bible verses, or continue your tantrum?



Eucharistic Miracles of the World - International Vatican Exhibition
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

 

[niftydrifty]

... more salt in your wounds ...

"the [Roman Catholic] Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshipped. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry."

- Heidelberg Catechism 80

 

[Felicity]

... more salt in your wounds ...

"the [Roman Catholic] Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshipped. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry."

- Heidelberg Catechism 80

Perhaps you should be up to date with the teachings of your own faith before you attempt to disparage the faith of others.

The Heidelberg Catechism - Christian Reformed Church

*Footnote:
Q. and A. 80 was altogether absent from the first German edition of the Heidelberg Catechism (January 1563) but appeared in a shorter form in the second German edition (March 1563). The translation above is of the expanded text of the third German edition (ca. April 1563). Its strong tone reflects the setting in which the Catechism was written.

In response to a mandate from Synod 1998, the Christian Reformed Church’s Interchurch Relations Committee conducted a study of Q. and A. 80 and the Roman Catholic Mass. Based on this study, Synod 2004 declared that “Q. and A. 80 can no longer be held in its current form as part of our confession.” Synod 2006 directed that Q. and A. 80 remain in the CRC’s text of the Heidelberg Catechism but that the last three paragraphs be placed in brackets to indicate that they do not accurately reflect the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman Catholic Church and are no longer confessionally binding on members of the CRC.

The Banner - Synod 2006: Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80

Synod 2006: Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80

The italicized text below is what will be placed in brackets in the future with an explanation that the CRC no longer believes that text adequately reflects the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church:

...and
Blog Be With You: Sorry 'bout That Whole `Idolatrous' Bit

 

[niftydrifty]

I didn't think that question 80 accurately reflected the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman Catholic Church, either.

ie., up until I got acquianted with the views of one of its members.

that's apparently why it IS still included, brackets, footnotes, or whatevuh.

 

[Felicity]

I didn't think that question 80 accurately reflected the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman Catholic Church, either.

ie., up until I got acquianted with the views of one of its members.

that's apparently why it IS still included, brackets, footnotes, or whatevuh.

I see you commented on the blog I linked to and referred it to this thread. Great--I hope many others come to recognize the error of their perceptions about the Catholic Faith and see that Jesus Himself instructed those who believe his words to do as He commands and eat his literal flesh.

As for what is in error in the Heidelberg Catechism, it is NOT that the Catholic Faith holds that at the consecration the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus--that is accurate--the problem with the statement in Q&A 80 is this:

1."the [Roman Catholic] Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ"

utterly FALSE--Catholics most certainly do believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the means of forgiveness of sins--and the ONLY means. Jesus is the Paschal Lamb of God and the source and summit of all Catholic worship.

2. "unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests."

AGAIN...utterly FALSE--Christ's SINGULAR sacrificial act is presently carried out through the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist at each Mass. It makes no difference to individual's salvation whether Christ's sacrifice is offered daily or not. It is--many times a day--but it is Christ alone who is the Salvation of the World.

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since 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. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."188

3. "It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshipped."

There is no worship of anything but God Himself as He makes Himself present to mankind through the Eucharistic miracle appearing as though bread and wine, but in actuality BEING Christ Himself.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206

4. "Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry"

Again--see above.

Quotes in green are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the numbers refer to the paragraphs where the information can be located.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist





Why did Christ allow those whom He told to "eat my flesh and drink my blood" walk away in their disgust and rejection of Him? --Because they did NOT believe in Him--they rather believed their own wisdom because what Christ calls us to believe is "a hard teaching." The disciples who left did so because they could not bear to hear the Truth--it was too unseemly, and flew in the face of their own human understanding. Nonetheless--if we are to follow the Word of God, we must follow His words--"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

 

[niftydrifty]

I see you commented on the blog I linked to and referred it to this thread. Great--I hope many others come to recognize the error of their perceptions about the Catholic Faith and see that Jesus Himself instructed those who believe his words to do as He commands and eat his literal flesh.

you're welcome, although I doubt that even "the most basic reader" will come to such a conclusion.

As for what is in error in the Heidelberg Catechism, it is NOT that the Catholic Faith holds that at the consecration the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus--that is accurate--the problem with the statement in Q&A 80 is this:

1."the [Roman Catholic] Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ"

utterly FALSE--Catholics most certainly do believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the means of forgiveness of sins--and the ONLY means. Jesus is the Paschal Lamb of God and the source and summit of all Catholic worship.

you don't seem to realize that you've taken a single statement, a sentence containing a condition following "unless..." ... and broken it in two as if you can remark about it in two parts.

to refute the first half of the statement, as though the "unless" does not exist, makes no sense at all.

example:

niftydrifty: "I always walk to work unless it's raining outside."

Felicity: "you don't ALWAYS walk to work!"

2. "unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests."

AGAIN...utterly FALSE--Christ's SINGULAR sacrificial act is presently carried out through the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist at each Mass. It makes no difference to individual's salvation whether Christ's sacrifice is offered daily or not. It is--many times a day--but it is Christ alone who is the Salvation of the World.

so exactly what is the CRC wrong about? that it isn't once a day anymore?

ok, not only that. the CRC is wrong about something else: that the RCC hasn't really changed at all on this matter, have they? question 80 should stay, as is, except for the "daily" part. I'll notify them immediately.

3. "It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshipped."

There is no worship of anything but God Himself as He makes Himself present to mankind through the Eucharistic miracle appearing as though bread and wine, but in actuality BEING Christ Himself.

4. "Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry"

Again--see above.

Quotes in green are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the numbers refer to the paragraphs where the information can be located.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist

Why did Christ allow those whom He told to "eat my flesh and drink my blood" walk away in their disgust and rejection of Him? --Because they did NOT believe in Him--they rather believed their own wisdom because what Christ calls us to believe is "a hard teaching." The disciples who left did so because they could not bear to hear the Truth--it was too unseemly, and flew in the face of their own human understanding. Nonetheless--if we are to follow the Word of God, we must follow His words--"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

we've been over this before, and you had no actual evidence to support your opinions about what the text said, or the position of the Catholic Church, other than the "miracles." I don't believe that Christ lied.

I'm glad I re-read my catechism recently. I had never given much care to what it had to say about the RCC, obviously. But now that I know a little bit about the subject, I've found that the Heidelberg Catechism sums up the whole matter accurately and succinctly.

things made with human hands should not be worshipped. the Bible is quite clear.

condemnable idolatry, it is.

 

[Felicity]

The thread evidence speaks for itself, niftydrifty, and where you are coming from does as well.