Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

[LTM]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
So it's only individuals in your opinion. Hank says the indwelling of the Holy Spirit guides him to the truth preached in his denomination. You say he's wrong. How does a person know which one if you is right? Can your website tell us?

Don't try to put words in my mouth Anthony you catholic's are very good at that.
I was lead to a church where the Holy Spirit was operating in the lives of men and women.
Especially the Pastor, who preaches the word of God under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
The denomination has nothing to do with it. Anthony.

[marge]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
So it's only individuals in your opinion. Hank says the indwelling of the Holy Spirit guides him to the truth preached in his denomination. You say he's wrong. How does a person know which one if you is right? Can your website tell us?

Well we really really do trust God alone, does that help?

[marge]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, the irrefutable fact is you have the Catholic Church to thank for the bible you own (even your abridged version).
And BTW, St. Paul was writing this letter to the Catholic Church in Rome.
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"
This would apply to heretics such as yourself.

He was writing to the christian church in rome, and us, agree?

[LTM]

ReginaM wrote:

<quoted text>
You disappoint me, Preston. I thought you were more intelligent than the rest of them. Your last statement is particularly ignorant. See the Letter to the Romans.(At least I'm not directing you to a web site, lol!)

Because I do not want to waste any more of my time Regina If you or any of the rest on the catholic's want to know information on scripture check it out yourself.
You won't because the bunch of you are to lazy to do so.
You would rather take a priest or the popes word for it that what he is telling you is true.
Well keep believing the lies Regina, if you won't seek the truth for yourself .
There is nothing intelligent about following someone who has been proven to be a liar, or someone who directs you away from Christ to another human to follow and worship.
Who teaches you to bow to a piece of plaster, and kiss it and pray to it. How intelligent is that.
And if that isn't enough to be dumb enough to believe that a man can call the Lord and Savior down from Heaven and into a wafer.

[Oxbow]

871

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
"You have no business quoting from the Bible to disprove the Catholic faith when it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible. This is the brash arrogance of Protestant Christians, who are ignorant of history and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. I call it “spoiled brat Christianity.” You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. "
"The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither)."
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

Horse puckett!!!!

English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.
John Wycliffe
John Wycliffe

The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe,(also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible.

With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

[JUST-A-CHRISTIAN]

hojo wrote:

<quoted text>
One (and only) Church
Catholic Church
"CATHOLIC denominations"
One True (Universal-Catholic) Church
One True Catholic Church
TRUE Catholic Church

same old, same old, same old copy\paste crap.....

[LTM]

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "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."
What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).
In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
Second, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.
cont

[LTM]

cont

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26,“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

[LTM]

"Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?"
Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim.(1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth.(2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination—activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.
cont

[LTM]

cont
God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in heaven has any greater access to God's throne than we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

[Oxbow]

LTM wrote:

cont
It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26,“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

Well hesh mah moff!!!!!

[JUST-A-CHRISTIAN]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
You conspiracy Christians never cease to amaze me.
So little faith.
So much ignorance. It takes about 3 seconds for your fantasy religion to sink against Catholicism.
You're built on sand.

OTC, it's the romanist denomination that is built on sand... SHIFTING SAND, and it's moving closer to the edge of the cliff every day. It denies our Lord Jesus by its idiotic worship of idols and prayers to dead people.
It mocks Jesus by its insistence that a mere priest can 'absolve' anyone from sin.
It flagrantly and arrogantly flies in God's face by daring to call its elected leaders 'His Holiness' and 'The Holy Father'.
It dares the Lord by insisting it can alter the Bible HE GAVE US, and vainly imagines it will not pay for using lifeless, useless statues to pray and kneel before, as well as attempting to name people as 'saints' in its cult.
The romanist cult dares to claim it is THE Church founded by Christ... when real Christians know that is a lie.
The Bible in 1 Corinthians 13 tells us:
1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

The romanist cult engages in charity to be seen; to be noticed and praised... it does indeed puff itself up, and boasts of what it thinks are 'accomplishments'. It aggrandizes, it lies, it boasts, it tries to usurp authority not its own.
It steals, it imitates, it infiltrates.
It uses mind control tactics, it threatens, it demands, it murders.
It resorts to torture of people to force them to 'believe' as it does.
It claims to 'love the Lord' while all the while it loves its elected pope, and serves Satan.
It has no real love.
It bases its salvation on its own doctrines, plus works, feigning adoration AND TRUST of Jesus, who freely offers salvation to ALL who honestly believe on His perfect name. Romanism insists it is 'works plus faith', and even then, romanists 'might' go to Heaven, as its priests often say.... but let us not forget the magical stopoff in its imaginary 'purgatory', or forget to buy useless indulgences and pay for special 'masses' to be chanted in order to buy a person out...
In essence, in all reality, and in all TRUTH, romanism is a cult... a godless, domineering, dominating, power-tripping, heinous CULT. And, its end is assured, as the Bible so clearly tells us in Revelation 17-18.

[ReginaM]

Catholicism and Fundamentalism — The Eucharist

After establishing the biblical basis of the early Church’s belief in the real presence Keating goes on to answer all the main objections of fundamentalists to the Holy Eucharist.

Fundamentalist attacks on the Church always come around, as they must, to the Eucharist. Bart Brewer, Donald F. Maconaghie, Jimmy Swaggart — they all zero in on the Eucharist, and in doing so they demonstrate that fundamentalists, contrary to popular belief, are not always literalists. This is shown in their interpretation of the key scriptural passage, the sixth chapter of John's Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper.

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. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do fundamentalists say?(A lot of blah, blah, blah as usual.)

Is that so? Let us see what the Early Church thought.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe...

Note the word 'education' in the link. Now I know this will scare away most if not all the fundies here, but do try to be brave and read the article, that is if you can understand the big words.

[Oxbow]

890

LTM wrote:

"Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?"
Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim.(1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth.(2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination—activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.
cont

"The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God."

In whose name????

[marge]

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,

"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

[JUST-A-CHRISTIAN]

Oxbow wrote:

One issue that is very damaging to idea of a Pope is the fact that some of the popes were so depraved, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them.
Looking into the history of the papacy, it is easy to see that not all popes were holy men. Accusations against them included but were not limited to blasphemy, simony (the buying and selling of the papal office), perjury, murder, adultery, intercourse with virgins and nuns, incest, sodomy, bestiality, robbery, idolatry, magic, infidelity, and gross and unnatural immorality.
Historians, even Roman Catholic historians will even attest to the fact there have been many sinful popes. Therefore, if popes are supposed to be the "representatives of Christ" here on earth and they are living an immoral lifestyle, should their commands still be obeyed if they are living in sin? No, it would be hypocritical for them to make rulings and decrees, and yet this is exactly what has been done by the popes

You betcha.
And there was some horrible nuns also --- the 'Mary Magdaline Asylum' really mistreated the prisoners
there.

[JUST-A-CHRISTIAN]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
So which sinless protestant leader would you recommend we listen too?

There is no sinless Protestant leader, just as there is no sinless priest or elected pope.

'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'.
Ever read that somewhere?

[Oxbow]

JUST-A-CHRISTIAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You betcha.
And there was some horrible nuns also --- the 'Mary Magdaline Asylum' really mistreated the prisoners
there.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely....

[7th Day Catholic Rocks]

Matthew 5:6
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

John 6

Jesus Is the Bread from Heaven

25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when did you come here?

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, You seek me, not because you saw the miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27Labor not for the food which perishes, but for that food which endures unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for on him has God the Father set his seal.

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.

30They said therefore unto him, What sign do you show then, that we may see, and believe you? what do you work?

31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world.

34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst.

36But I said unto you, That you also have seen me, and believe not.

37All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and he that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.

38For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will who has sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he said, I came down from heaven?

43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, comes unto me.

46Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father.

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me has everlasting life.

48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54Whosoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live forever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

continueded

[7th Day Catholic Rocks]

continued

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Hebrews 10

Christ's Sacrifice Is Once for All

5Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering you desired not, but a body have you prepared me:

6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do your will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin you desired not, neither had pleasure in them; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do your will, O God. He takes away the first, that he may establish the second.

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Christ's One Sacrifice Is Forever

11And every priest stands daily ministering and offering frequently the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From then on waiting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified.

15The Holy Spirit also is a witness to us: for after this he had said before,

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.