(May 19, 2014 at 12:54 am)Luckie Wrote:

catholiccourier.com Wrote:

What did Jesus really say at the Last Supper? The quoted words of our Lord in the institution of the Eucharist are different in all three synoptic Gospels, and all differ as well from the eucharistic institution formula we use at Mass. John does not refer to the Eucharist at all in his narrative of the Last Supper, at least in this direct way. These differing readings probably reflected variations in the liturgy from one place to another in those days. Whatever the reasons, each Gospel writer added, changed or subtracted ideas he thought necessary to express what he wanted to say about Jesus. The 1964 Pontifical Biblical Commission Instruction on the biblical truth of the Gospels reflects the nearly universal position of major scholars today. From the many things handed down to them, said the commission, the Gospel writers "selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis" and explained yet others "as they kept in mind the (different) situation(s) of the churches. ... - See more at: http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentar...HWYQC.dpuf

---

The gospel writers didn't quote Jesus verbatim. They related the events as anyone would. One writer included one aspect or event which they wanted to portray to his readers and another writer might include or exclude something else. If you take all three accounts of the last supper they all tell the same story of Jesus eating with his apostles and instituting the Eucharist. They all agree about what transpired on that evening. The gospels were not dictated word for word to the writers. If they were exactly the same, the writers be accused of getting together to get their stories straight and collaborating to create a fictional story. As far as the virgin birth stories are concerned, it really doesn't matter that there have been other stories of virgin births. They don't have any effect on the truth of the virgin birth of Jesus.

---

(May 20, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Didn't quite make it to verse 7 huh lek?

---

Plus after that whole destruction of Christianity I posted, that's the best you have? Because I can quote a lot more failed prophecies

I did make it to verse 7. That's why I pointed to the change of the plural "he" (Nebuchadnezzar) to the plural "they" (others) beginning in verse 12. You can quote "failed" prophecies till your face turns blue and there will be facts to disprove your claims. As far as your hindu miracle goes, I assume since it was genuine, that you believe in the existence of the supernatural. At least we have some common ground there.

Well you haven't even demonstrated that facts on that prophecy, which clearly states that nechudnezzar who was seiging Tyre at the time would take the city, demolish it and depopulate it. That never happened

---

And the reason it changes from singular to plural is because the Babylonians had allies.

---

One more thing. I don't believe in what you would call the supernatural at all, I simply believe that there phenomenon that we have no tadequately explained yet.You see calling anything supernatural makes assumptions, assumptions I'm not willing to make because they were made time and again in the past about things like disease and have not been vindicated once. So to put it in clear words, there are things that happen and we have idea what causes them.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Well you haven't even demonstrated that facts on that prophecy, which clearly states that nechudnezzar who was seiging Tyre at the time would take the city, demolish it and depopulate it. That never happened

---

And the reason it changes from singular to plural is because the Babylonians had allies.

What does this say in the paragraph immediately preceding your paragraph.? Nebuchadnezzar's nation was one of various nations who attacked Tyre, which eventually led to it's final destruction by Alexander the Great. That's why the pronouns changed from singular to plural. It never states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre at that time in history.

In Ezekiel 26:3-6 it says "3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

The Vatican has been masquerading as "Christian" ever since the Devil decided he needed to undermine Christianity with his political system (Rome) at the time.

I believe nothing that comes out of the mouth of their spokesmen.
This co called "Church" has persecuted / tortured/ murdered all who have refused to bow to it as long as it could get away with it.

(May 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Lek Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Well you haven't even demonstrated that facts on that prophecy, which clearly states that nechudnezzar who was seiging Tyre at the time would take the city, demolish it and depopulate it. That never happened

---

And the reason it changes from singular to plural is because the Babylonians had allies.

What does this say in the paragraph immediately preceding your paragraph.? Nebuchadnezzar's nation was one of various nations who attacked Tyre, which eventually led to it's final destruction by Alexander the Great. That's why the pronouns changed from singular to plural. It never states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre at that time in history.

In Ezekiel 26:3-6 it says "3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

Well even if you interprete it that way, which most Christian authorities don't, it still doesn't work because the prophets says that Tyre will be left destroyed and un inhabited, which Alexander the great didn't do. He took the city and sacked it, but did not leave a complete ruin. I'm on my cell now so I can't search but there was a lengthy thread on this topic a while ago.

---

(May 20, 2014 at 5:43 pm)professor Wrote: The Vatican has been masquerading as "Christian" ever since the Devil decided he needed to undermine Christianity with his political system (Rome) at the time.

I believe nothing that comes out of the mouth of their spokesmen.
This co called "Church" has persecuted / tortured/ murdered all who have refused to bow to it as long as it could get away with it.

Funny they say the same about Protestants.

Lemon- a good idea is to observe what is done rather than what is said.
History shows that group just as ruthless as their Muslim counterparts today.

The Vatican has never apologized for the evil they did and would do again if they could.

Without a knowledge of facts anyone would make the assumption Rampant just made.

What Catholicism does is retain some biblical words while changing meanings.
All cults do the same thing.

The pope is the highest authority rather than the Bible.
The Bible is negated by Catholic doctrine.

Salvation comes (they think) by participation in a "Mass" - a re-sacrifice cerimony.
Rather than trusting in what Jesus did.

Jesus said "Call no man "Father" (in the place of God) but preists call themselves "Father".

Paul said, "Some will DEPART from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, FORBIDDING to eat MEATS"... Who does that?
Catholics.

In the Catholic bible, the commandment forbidding bowing to idols and images is omitted while another of the 10 commandments are split into 2 to cover the lie.

The pope calls himself the "Vicar of Christ". "Vicar means - replacement. Replacement means - not the origional.
In other words- a fake.

It is genius to make a fake look genuine.
They have had a lot of practice.

They're still a Christian denomination.

Points scored for the devil.
Cult groups like the JWs, Mormons are also considered "Christian".
Score more points for the devil.