Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is just a claim, it has nothing to support it in the passage. Baptism means baptism - generally speaking - and saint Peter doesn't say "baptism saves, I mean by baptism something quite unlike the baptism you received when you entered the Church". And since he says no such thing it is bad exegesis to act as if he did say it, it is in fact eisegesis.
Except that Jesus does in fact say that eating his flesh and drinking his blood give life. He gives every indication, in the discourse, that he is speaking of the last supper, the Eucharist, holy communion. He offers himself as the bread from heaven, which unlike the Manna in the wilderness, is true bread that gives true life.
That's quite a re-writing of the text. I am going with the Word of God, which says "baptism saves" and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood." In John 6 Jesus also is quite emphatic about eating his true flesh and drinking his true blood.
So your gonna ignore everything I said without responding at all? At least I know what I'm dealing with now.
Yes, and I'm sure you think the bread and wine are his literal flesh and blood. And you think eating and drinking them gives eternal life. Never mind that Jesus said things going in the mouth and passing out the other end cannot enter your heart.
Okay, I dealt with your thesis in a previous post. So, the first paragraph is answered.
No, that is not what I think, nor what the Catholic Church teaches. What the Church teaches is that the host and the content of the chalice is the body and blood [as well as the soul and divinity] of Jesus Christ. This "literal" thing is a tool of Protestant polemics, a nonsense in reality, that people use as a cudgel to beat up Catholics in discussion forums. No Catholic claims "literal" human flesh and "literal" human blood are consumed in communion, but every faithful Catholic believes that the content of the chalice is the blood of Christ and the host is his body. We say "amen" when that is proposed to us as the host is given to us and as the chalice is handed to us.
John 6:52-65 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
"I can do all things through a verse out of context"
Well, saint Pater said that Noah's ark and the flood are like baptism that now saves us.
How, exactly, do you know what THEY BELIEVE? If you take the time to read what the Catholic Church teaches you will not find the things you've said because the Catholic Church does not teach that.
I meant the Catholics I talked to about the situation. They said my mom's going to heaven, I'm going to hell, because my mom had the sacraments done in a Catholic church, despite being an unbeliever and actually hating Christianity, and I did not.
Ah, I see; well, they are wrong - or may be wrong. It is not task for human beings to decide who goes to heaven and who to hell. That's God's privilege because he is the judge. We are better to let God be judge and us be merciful and kind.
So If I say, Paul baptized (verb) a few people, that has nothing to do with those people's baptism (noun)?
My point was that just because the word baptism is used, it does not necessarily mean water baptism. But it is Ok if you think everything I said is irrelevant.
Yes, we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. There is a difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism. John the Baptist was the first one to make the distinction:
I don't see any real difference between "literal" and your description.
Why would you think that?
Baptism usually means baptism and one is baptised with water (in water if you prefer). What is irrelevant is the claim that baptism isn't baptism but something else, "spirit baptism" is think is the thing you were asserting it was. In 1 Peter 3:21 baptism is baptism, the kind that uses water, that is why Saint Peter said that the water of the floods was like the baptism that now saves us.
Except that saint John [the Baptist] never said a thing about water as opposed to spirit baptism, what he said was that Jesus would baptise with Fire and the Holy Spirit. But saint Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 is writing about water - first the waters of the flood and then the water of baptism - while he makes the point that it was water that saved Noah and his family from the wicked world of those days and that it is water that saves us now. He is not attempting to discuss baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit, I cannot think you'd think he was.
That may be because your understanding of "literal" isn't literal. In any case when Jesus says "this is my body" he means that it is his body but not that "this is literally my body" because in that case he'd be asserting something that he didn't assert, namely, that the bread in his hand was his body - presumably his entire body - rather than that the bread was his body and the wine his blood in a way he chose not to explain. They simply are what he said they are and we are to believe it rather than dissect it and pick the explanation that we most prefer.
lol. I would think they were related. That's like saying Jesus saves (verb) has no relation to being saved (noun). Of course they are related.
lol. According to the Bible, John the Baptist said, "I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (Mk 1:8) He is contrasting the water baptism that he performed with the Spirit baptism that Jesus would later perform. How can you say John the Baptist never said a thing about water as opposed to spirit baptism. Maybe you think John the Baptist is the same John that wrote the Gospel according to John? I say this because you don't use the name the Bible gives him (i.e., "John the Baptist"), you call him, "saint John [the Baptist]".
It is clear that you have no knowledge of the baptism that Jesus performs with the Holy Spirit. Like I said above, Spirit baptism is the real baptism that moves a person from death to life. Water baptism does not and can not move a person from death to life. Only Spirit baptism can do that. Said another way, when Jesus floods our hearts with the Holy Spirit and comes to make His home in us, we are raised from the dead and become new creatures in Christ. This is the baptism every person needs to escape eternal death and live with God forever. Maybe you understand it now that I have explained it. I hope so.
