DB

@CorruptionWire @ShawnRyan762 Are you ok?

@redbeardd_13 @ShawnRyan762 Ass-fucking alter boys?

The Pentagon summoned the Pope's ambassador, told him the United States has the military power to do "whatever it wants," and warned that the Church better take its side. They even invoked the Avignon Papacy, a dark chapter in history when a government used military force to bend the Church to its will. So where exactly does this end? If the Pope refuses to fall in line, what's the next move, bomb the Vatican? thedailybeast.com/trump-official…

@CorruptionWire @ShawnRyan762 The pope hasn’t thrown any political punches. He vocalizes church teaching.

@ShawnRyan762 Q? If Pope throws political punches, should he not receive same in return?

@mrdavidduff @colbymueller @ryanburge @redeemed_zoomer You could just say you have no idea what purgatory is…

@redbeardd_13 @colbymueller @ryanburge @redeemed_zoomer Through works, indulgences, prayers and penance.

No one is more fearful of dying than Catholics. 39% said they afraid or very afraid of dying. For Protestants, it was 20%. For the non-religious it was 28%

@mrdavidduff @colbymueller @ryanburge @redeemed_zoomer Purgatory isn’t adding, it’s subtracting attachment to sin.

@redbeardd_13 @colbymueller @ryanburge @redeemed_zoomer Anything added to the finished work of Christ is mere vanity

@YooglyZoogly @BackwardsFeet The Catholics who argue that have no legs to stand on. A person is a person no matter how small.

@BackwardsFeet With all due respect, you buried EMBRYOS. They are not, were not, children. This type of wild overreach is why most thinking people and over half of Catholics are tired of religious-based objection to reproductive services. You are the child, your mind mushed by extremism.

I buried 87 children today. Babies conceived through IVF whose parents realized their dignity and wanted to give them a burial that valued their worth as human beings made in the image and likeness of God. Pray for an end to IVF.

@GunnerPuls Varane, Di Maria, Van Nistelrooy, Chicarito… super easy lol

Beckham and Ronaldo aside, name a player that played for Real Madrid and Manchester United. Level: Super Hard

@tolepainter56 @notabreadliner @BishopJaxi Out of context screenshot lol but I’ll answer my own question, it was the Catholic Church led by the Holy Spirit that compiled the books of the Bible.

@redbeardd_13 @notabreadliner @BishopJaxi

Why didn’t Jesus, the Apostles, or any Christian for the first 1,500 years teach that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith?

@_onlyscott Beckham and Di Maria

Guess the player VERY HARD

@triggerman1976 @BishopJaxi The Bible didn’t even exist when Paul was saying this…

@BishopJaxi Remind me…what did the Apostle Paul say “made one wise unto salvation” and is “breathed out by God…for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness”?

@notabreadliner @BishopJaxi Brother… who put the Bible together?

@BishopJaxi Devils advocate. Why do we need to listen to the early Christians like the church fathers when we have the Bible? Isn’t the Bible the infallible word of God so why should we listen to fallible men like the church fathers and church councils that disagreed with each other?

@realjomassie @DrFrankTurek You will actually be very much living, more alive than we are now. Mt 22:23

@DrFrankTurek It's absolute justice. If you ever missed someone, you'll know what I am talking about. Also, you're dead. You are not living so to speak. Like you're not going to have to get a cup of coffee every morning. It's just absolute justice with the divinity of love.

Will I Be Bored in Heaven?

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach I would encourage you to study Jewish Passover, pray, and then compare it side by side with the last supper, it’s a real eye opener.

Listen your position has been explained to me over and over. I completely disagree and just a simple little bit of research regarding the church fathers none of them believed in the Eucharist to the extent the Catholic Church does today. Not transubstantion. Many Church fathers did not agree on this topic but the Catholic church just decided which doctrine they wanted to keep and would stop when they wanted to throw out and who was a heretic and who was not. I personally that believe that the Catholic Church made the wrong choices on whom to believe and who not to because what I see is paganism, idolatry and completely unbiblical beliefs Just like the Catholic Church interprets the Bible and over interprets to create insane doctrines it requires you to interpret and manipulative both scripture and the early church fathers. We will not agree on this but I appreciate the conversation

Jesus did not correct them when they left over the Eucharist. He let them go.

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach There are even tons of secular sources that accuse the early Christians of cannibalism. The claims of cannibalism only make sense if the Eucharist was seen as Christ’s actual body and blood—otherwise, why would pagans misunderstand it this way?

Since you mentioned early church fathers and Paul>Clement ties Which clement? There are 2 clements. Clement of Alexandria: Clement of Alexandria viewed John 6 allegorically, seeing Christ's flesh and blood as symbols for the Holy Spirit and the Word (Logos), representing faith, instruction, and the divine life, rather than a literal physical consumption, though he affirmed the Eucharist as the "real presence" of Christ as Spirit and Word, the true food for believers, contrasting it with perishable earthly food like manna. He emphasized that the "food" is the proclamation of the Gospel, leading to faith, which nourishes the soul, making Christ the true sustenance Symbolic Interpretation: Clement interpreted Jesus' words in John 6 ("Eat my flesh, drink my blood") metaphorically, seeing "flesh" as the Holy Spirit and "blood" as the Word (Logos). In essence, Clement saw John 6 as describing the spiritual reality of Christ as life-giving food, communicated through the Gospel and faith, which finds its ultimate expression in the sacramental nourishment of the Eucharist, understood as the Spirit and Word made manifest. Clement of Rome did not discuss John 6 or the eucharist So? And as far as the other church fathers go, some viewed it as allegory some viewed it literally. Ignatius is the ONLY one who makes a specific mention that its literally Christ's body. So you just pick one you like and roll with that and then decide that one sounds the best? It wasn't until the 1500s it became official dogma....why?

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach The dogmatic declaration at the Council of Trent (16th century) did not invent the doctrine; it codified it in response to Protestant challenges, formalizing what had long been the Church’s belief and practice. It is historically inaccurate to claim otherwise.

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) stresses that the Eucharist is both sacramental and truly Christ’s body, connecting it to the incarnation.

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) explicitly affirms the literal presence, calling the Eucharist “the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” and condemning those who deny it. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) also describes the Eucharist as bread and wine that become the flesh and blood.

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach You conveniently ignore the Greek. John would not switch to the word for (gnaw / chew) if he was only speaking in metaphor. Why do you presume your interpretation is correct as opposed to those of the earliest Christians, those who were taught by the apostles?

John 6 :48-59 in context : (This is happening while they were eating actual bread with a large diverse crowd) In verse 48 Jesus says: I am the bread of life: Jesus repeated and continued the use of this metaphor. As bread is necessary for physical life, so Jesus is necessary for spiritual and eternal life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead: The spiritual bread Jesus offers is even greater than the manna Israel ate in the wilderness. What they ate only gave them temporal life; what Jesus offers brings eternal life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever: Jesus spoke in a figure of speech. The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus’ day, and pointed to a taking within one’s innermost being. Jesus explained that receiving Him as bread was not receiving Him as a great moral teacher, example, or prophet. It was not receiving Him as a good or great man or noble martyr. It was receiving Him in light of what He did on the cross, His ultimate act of love for lost humanity. How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? It’s probable that the Jewish leaders willfully misunderstood Jesus at this point. He just explained that the bread was His body that would be given as a sacrifice for the life of the world (John 6:51). They willfully twisted His words to imply a bizarre cannibalism. This was the result of their quarreling (The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves). “They differed in their judgment of Him. Some impatiently denounced Him as insane; others suggesting that there was truth in His words.” “Our Savior was, however, led to make these remarks from the fact that the ignorant Jews, when he talked about eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, really thought that he meant that they were to turn cannibals, and eat him up. The Catholic church solemnly assures us that the people who eat the bread and drink the wine, or the stuff he calls bread and wine, do actually act the part of cannibals, and eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood.” In other words, the Catholic Church behaves the same as "the ignorant Jews" and many decided not to follow him after this. According to the Bible, Jesus spoke in parables to reveal the "secrets of the kingdom" to his disciples while concealing them from others, fulfilling prophecy and testing listeners' hearts. Ironically the same point Jesus is is making in John 6 is the same reason why Catholics cant see this for what it is. A metaphor to describe a deeply spiritual truth. The fact that it starts as a metaphor (bread of life) we are supposed to think that it then switches to literalism? Verse 60 says Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” if this was literal, why did his disciples (actual disciples) not understand that it was literal? Verse 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. Jesus further confirms his message was a spiritual truth, not a literal one His disciples trusted him, but still did not fully understand because Jesus had not yet been crucified and their eyes were not completely open yet. John 6 isn't even about the Eucharist at all. It is about receiving Jesus in our innermost being and alluding to his future sacrifice that we must wholly and completely accept his body and his blood as atonement.

@AmberSimmo30520 @BillArnoldTeach The earliest Christians understood this plainly and unanimously, leaving no room for a symbolic-only escape. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Ignatious of Antioch all wrote of this in clear terms.

John 6 was before the Last Supper. In all the scripture in the chapter leading up to what Christ was saying Jesus called himself "the bread of life" as a metaphor... Then he goes on to say "eat my flesh and drink my blood" This was a clear allusion to his future sacrifice and the whole reason Jesus spoke in Parables, illustrations and illusions According to the Bible, Jesus spoke in parables to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom of God to his disciples while simultaneously veiling them from those with hard hearts, fulfilling prophecy and prompting deeper engagement. Jesus' audience in John 6 shifts from a large, mixed crowd (seeking physical bread after the feeding miracle) to skeptical "Jews" grumbling about his claims, and finally to his own disciples, some of whom struggled with his teaching on being the "Bread of Life," leading many followers to leave him, while the core disciples remained. The main groups were the miracle-seeking masses, the unbelieving Jewish leaders/people (referred to as "the Jews"), and his inner circle of disciples. This is why Jesus did not provide clarity in John 6....his true followers and disciples understood the spiritual nature of what Jesus was saying. Jesus doubled down to test the hearts. This was alluding to Jesus' future sacrifice which was later even further clarified in the last supper. No mention anywhere in the Bible at any time anywhere that bread and wine literally transforms into blood and body. If it were meant to, the Bible would clarify that and it never does. The entire reason Jesus lost so many followers in John 6 is because they were incapable of understanding the spiritual truth Jesus was trying to convey. They had a religious mindset. Jewish law condemned eating flesh and drinking blood. They viewed Jesus as a false teacher.