tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327356110360399061.post759582835851390516..comments2023-06-08T02:02:38.695-07:00Comments on Biblical Catholicism: Answering a non-Catholic objectionNathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01465317273535850045noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327356110360399061.post-71904743382382087442018-02-12T20:17:12.323-08:002018-02-12T20:17:12.323-08:00As for Ignatius being a witness for your wafer-ido...As for Ignatius being a witness for your wafer-idol, see here...<br />http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/<br /><br />You also say, Can your belief in a symbolic presence be proven the same way [as our 2,000 year track record]?<br />ANSWER: It doesn't have to be! First of all there is a truckload of biblical evidence AGAINST your "miraculous Eucharist", so fidelity to the word of God is paramount, not how long something has been in existence. Second, the Lord tells us of a religious monstrosity that would arise that he would be none too pleased with in Revelation, and what with all the allusions to Catholicism found therein, we say that the RCC is precisely that religious monstrosity, so of course, error had to creep in quite early for that mega false church to plant its seeds. Third of all, Paul was shocked that the early Christians were so easily ditching what they had been taught, so again, it is not surprising that false doctrine crept in early, as God had anticipated and ordained for his own good reasons. Thus, your "2,000" year argument is overshadowed by MORE than a few black clouds.<br /><br />Essentially, instead of letting Scripture be their Ringmaster, the Catholic position is always propped up by the most flimsy of implications, basing their theology on the dare-devilry and acrobatic magic acts coming from the mouth of those clowns at the Vatican circus.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420427039737373007noreply@blogger.com