Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
Articles 4 Kids adj

Discovery Channel’s Megalodon Hoax

Posted on

By R. L. David Jolly

Articles 4 Kids adjLast week, the Discovery Channel once again aired their famous Shark Week.  The week was full of programs about sharks, some new and many reruns.  With great commercial advertisement and hype, they kicked off Shark Week with a two hour special on Megalodon.

Megalodon is an extinct shark that measured an estimated 60-70 feet long.  Since sharks’ skeletons are made of cartilage, most of the fossil evidence we have of them is their teeth and Megalodon’s teeth are most impressive.  I have one that measures nearly 4 inches, but teeth 7 inches are often found, compared to the teeth of a great white shark that only measure up to 3 inches in size.

The Discovery Channel’s Megalodon special was made to appear like a real investigation into a boating disaster along the coast of South Africa that resulted in the disappearance of 4 people.  According to the program, they brought in one of the world’s leading experts, Dr. Collin Drake.  He is eventually joined by marine biologist Dr. Madelyn Joubert.  They believe they have evidence of a shark that measures 60 feet, more than twice as long as the largest great white known.  Interestingly, if you do a search for either person, you soon find that they only exist in the Megalodon special.

All through the special, they have a number of supposed experts claiming that Megalodon could not possibly exist today because it went extinct about 2 million years ago.  Some stated that there is no evidence that a Megalodon sized shark exists today, but the main reason given was its extinction 2 million years ago.

Interestingly, in the past 100 years, scientists have discovered a number of species that were supposed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago.  Probably the most famous is the coelacanth, believed to have gone extinct about 65 million years ago.  When it was rediscovered in 1938, it was found to look exactly like the supposed 65 million year old fossil, meaning that it hadn’t change or evolved in all that time.

Another large marine creature thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago is the megamouth shark.  However, it was rediscovered in 1976.  Since that time, nearly 2 dozen specimens have been sighted, some measuring up to 18 feet long.  As if defying evolution, the megamouth shark hasn’t changed one bit from the millions of year old fossil remains.

The pygmy right whale was thought to have gone extinct about 2 million years ago, around the same time as Megalodon.  This small whale which can reach a length of 21 feet surprisingly appeared washed up on a beach in 2012.  Like the coelacanth and megamouth shark, the pygmy right whale is another shining example of no evolutionary change whatsoever.

So even though Discovery Channel’s special on Megaldon was all fiction, could everyone’s reason for it not possibly existing today still be valid?  They all claim that it couldn’t exist because it disappeared 2 million years ago, but then so had the others listed above.

But what if Megalodon existed less than 4,000 years ago? Would they still say that there is no possible way it could be alive today?

Consider that many creation geologists (not all) place the end of the Genesis flood around the geologic layer known at the K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary, in evolutionary terms, about 65 million years ago.  According to biblical dates and chronology, the Genesis flood ended about 4,361 years ago.  Based upon these comparisons, that would place the extinction of Megalodon to less than 2,000 years ago.

Would scientists still be so sure that Megalodon can’t exist today if they knew it was still living less than 2,000 years ago?

I call this learning to think biblically.  You start with the Bible and then use it to interpret the facts.  Evolutionists do the same thing.  They start with their belief in millions of years and use that belief to interpret the facts.  The facts are facts.  What differs are the interpretations and both sides make their interpretations based upon their beliefs.

I make no apologies letting people know that I base my interpretations upon the inerrant and infallible word of the Creator.  I trust you will learn to do the same.

 

Genesis: A Commentary for Children

The beginning books of the Bible are essential to our understanding of God’s redemptive story.

The authorcreatively focuses our attention on the events that bring this story to life. The richness of well-written literature and the depth of understanding inherent in a commentary results in details that live and sing. They help parent and child understand the Christ-centered Word, and they are enjoyable reading for both.

Your own faith will be strengthened while reading to your children, and your children will be encouraged, lesson by lesson, to believe in the Lord Jesus.

“Bible commentaries for children? Yes, the depth of Bible commentaries in story form for parents to read to their children. This series of books provides what children need – solid truths to grow in to. Too much material for children is so light and fluffy that children are not encouraged to think great and glorious thoughts about God. These books are different. Artfully written, they beautifully draw out the implications of the Old Testament narrative that are foundational for Christian faith. I guarantee that your children will not want you to stop reading these books and you won’t want to stop either.” –Dr. Tedd Tripp, Pastor, Author, Conference Speaker

“The publication of commentaries for children on neglected biblical books such as Exodus and Leviticus is noteworthy in itself. For Christians have for too long starved their children of much of the nourishment of that Word which is ‘all… profitable’. But Nancy Ganz’s ‘Herein is Love’ series is very much more. Here, in fact, is a biblical theology, a re-telling of these ancient writings in the light of the whole Bible and with a firm grasp of its central thrilling theme – the redeeming love of God in Christ. Doctrinally sure-footed, warmly devotional and refined over years of practical teaching experience, these lessons will prove an invaluable resource for all those engaged in training children for God. As society drifts ever farther from biblical moorings, here is timely help towards preparing a new generation to stand steadfast in the faith and, by God’s grace, impact the world for King Jesus.” –Professor Ted Donnelly President, Reformed Theological College, Belfast

“Where can one even think of finding such treasures as these fine commentaries on Bible books written for children? Nancy Ganz’s ‘Herein is Love’ series is a combination of biblical-theological acuity married to careful exegetical precision, and all in bite-sized portions designed for younger readers. Truth is, I think I will be dipping into these treasures myself to ensure that I have grasped what the text means! Children reared on material of this kind will surely grow into giants in the kingdom. A tour de force in children’s literature.” –Derek Thomas, Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

Print Friendly and PDF
 

This entry was posted in Articles 4 Kids, Biology, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Design, Evolution, History, Origins, Paleontology, Science, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • ONTIME

    What is your point?
    Do you believe the documentary or don’t you….? You worded this article like a little girl afraid of a spider…

  • Robert Quance

    Either way the Big Shark may still be around so what is the difference. Watch out boaters.

  • pete1589

    Do you really believe the Word of God is “inerrant and Infalible?” If so, why aren’t you Roman Catholic?

    • Randy

      The word of God is infallible. Who said the Roman Catholic faith is infallible though? Where did you come up with that?

      • pete1589

        Simple, Randy, simple. The protest-ant rebellion has been subdivided into over 59,000 sects and still counting. Simple logic tells anyone who can think that Truth is One, and not mere opinion or whim of appetite, can easily conclude that the indestructible Catholic Church, which can historically justify it’s existence on many levels, not the least of which is an unbroken (even though heavily attacked) line of popes straight back to Peter.

        It was to Peter himself that Christ said, “Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” That kind of explicitly Christ-ordained commandment is applicable only to the Church which Christ established. Thus we can see that the Holy Ghost, which has guided the Church in unity for 2000 years and counting, makes the Church infallible.

        You can only count your “church” back to one of the renegade PROTEST-ants who decided to reject the Church, abandon the narrow path, and make God in their image, rather than themselves in God’s image as Christ dictated we must do.

        Hope that helps you think straight. God bless.

        • petroskhan

          Can you cite a single verse or historical where Peter called himself “Pope”?

          “That kind of explicitly Christ-ordained commandment is applicable only to the Church which Christ established.”

          And the Church which you claim Christ established (without proof) is exactly the same as it was when it was established, unvarying in its devotion to following the words and deeds of Christ? It has not deviated from Scripture at all?

          “Thus we can see that the Holy Ghost, which has guided the Church in unity for 2000 years and counting, makes the Church infallible.”

          A collection of men is infallible? An organization, whose rules and doctrines are determined by mere men, is fallible by its very nature.

          From the Bible, it is easily proven that the Catholic Church and its doctrines are riddled with paganism, idolatry, and anti-Bible teachings.

          You should spend more time actually reading your Bible, and following ITS dictates, rather than the blasphemous customs established by an organization far too impressed with itself.

          • pete1589

            Very well, petro, very well. For if the egocentric history of the PROTESTant heresies, one upon another upon another, all stemming from the pride and “traditions of men” like Martin Luther, an ex-monk, or Henry VIII, a nationalistic fornicator riddled with syphilis, or John Knox, a reformist who took his own, weird interpretations of Holy Writ to gain political power (as all “reformists” are wont to do), or Samuel Seabury, or Robert Brown, or John and Charles Wesley, or Theophilus Lindley who founded the vacuous theology of Unitarianism totally denying the Divinity of Christ, or Joseph Smith whose personal delusion of receiving golden plates from the “angel Moroni” moronically deluded hundreds of thousands of other based on his insatiable carnal appetites leading him to practice polygamy … shall I go on?

            Or shall we find you a member of the nationalistic, non-universal “churches” of Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox or the like? Racist much? Noooooo, couldn’t be that, being so proud of their national identity that no filthy stinking Pope is going to tell THEM what to do, right?

            Talk about far too impressed with itself? Pride divides, and causes a great fall. And what a fall it has been for millions upon millions who refuse to submit to the only Church which was instituted by Christ and the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

            From the Bible it is easily proven that the Catholic Church IS THE ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC, UNIVERSAL CHURCH which Christ said the gates of Hell would never prevail against. 2,000 years and counting, and in the last century alone we’ve had pedophile priests and bishops alike trying to kill Her, as well as massive invasion by communist agents (see AA-1025 at amazon.com) and defamation of Popes like Pius XII by them, readily believed by people like you who don’t do the investigation and find its origins in the play The Deputy produced by the KGB. See http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kgb_intent_on_linking_pius_xii_with_nazis_says_former_spy/

            Seriously, consider the dilution and depreciation of the messages of the Bible, where men come up with completely unique interpretations, none of which are agreed upon by other “theologians,” and the utter theological confusion of the PROTEST-ant “reformation”, compare it to the steady, relentless declaration of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, the total inability of any human organization or force or philosophy or theology to unseat It, let alone destroy It, and don’t you find something miraculous about that?

            Couldn’t it somehow be actually TRUE that theological confusion based on a personal popes-unto-yourselves interpretations, justified by the Bible alone, actually be walking on thin ice? Think on the fact that the devil himself tempted Christ in the desert with Old Testament Scripture. Where do you think the utter confusion of the PROTEST-ant “reformation” comes from?

            And, finally, doesn’t the Bible Itself state in 1st Timothy what we are to believe, i.e., 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

            The pillar and ground of the truth…. Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.

            I know, I know, it’s just too, too much of a stretch to admit the indestructibility of the Catholic Church, no matter the attempts through 2,000 years, no matter the fact that the Catholic Church has been the shield of western civilization against the Muslim onslaught, ousting them in Philip and Isabella’s Spain, stopping them at the naval battle of Lepanto where the Muslims were using enslaved, kidnapped Christians as oarsmen, the stoppage of the Ottoman Empire at the gates of Vienna, or the crusades which were a European answer to the aforementioned enslavement of Christians attempting to visit the Holy Land and see where Jesus trod.

            Nothing miraculous about any of that, now, is there?

          • petroskhan

            “From the Bible it is easily proven that the Catholic Church IS THE ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC, UNIVERSAL CHURCH”

            Okay, prove that, if you don’t mind. Prove to me that the blasphemous, pagan and idolatrous doctrines of the Catholic Church are “easily proven” from the pages of Scripture. And don’t cite for me some verse that COULD mean what you want, but only if taken out of context, read in the right light, from the right angle, etc. CLEAR, DIRECT proof. It’s “easily proven”, right? Please do so.

            And I’m not impressed by duration, nor by numbers of followers. I’m impressed by adherence to the Word of God, and it is in this area that I find the doctrines and practices of Catholicism lacking.

            “Couldn’t it somehow be actually TRUE that theological confusion based on a personal popes-unto-yourselves interpretations, justified by the Bible alone, actually be walking on thin ice?”

            No, it can’t be “walking on thin ice”, since that is EXACTLY what the Bible says. Your own question, and the words you’ve chosen, clearly demonstrate more than anything else, what your position is. “Justified by the Bible alone”??? What other justification is needed? To what other authority would you turn?

            The verse you’ve quoted in 1 Tim 3:15 is but one part of a passage wherein we are given instructions on how to organize the church, and how to select those in positions of authority within the church. I notice you left out all of that. The first verse of the chapter you reference states:
            “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer (or Bishop), it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” Oh, but wait…Catholic priests aren’t allowed to marry, are they? Reading on to the next chapter of the same book, we encounter THIS warning:
            “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving….” Hold on…what was that? “…teachings of demons…who forbid marriage…” Well, that seems fairly clear to me, how about you?

            “I know, I know, it’s just too, too much of a stretch to admit the indestructibility of the Catholic Church, no matter the attempts through 2,000 years”

            You know, since Satan is the ruler of this world, and has enormous influence, it’s not a stretch at all to me that one of his greatest tools survives. I would expect no less. You don’t get people to go against God in one large step, or with one huge declaration of defiance. Far more successful would be the minor alterations, the subtle step-by-step erosion of faith and righteous doctrine. Any of that sound familiar? Any of that seem like a rather large organization, led by some guy in Rome with a funny hat, with a huge following, that teaches many, MANY doctrines not supported by, and counter to, the Bible?

            I could go on and on, listing one glaring, blasphemous flaw after another, adhered to in opposition to the clear, direct directives we are given in the Bible. All one needs to do is actually take a step back and be willing to entertain the idea that one might actually be wrong. Then, open your Bible, and read it for yourself, with prayerful devotion and submission to God, and God alone.

            The rest is easy.

          • pete1589

            Wow, tons of PROTEST here, isn’t there? What more should I expect from you, eh?

            So what you wish me to do is to give you a long-winded analysis of all the copious citations of Holy Writ which prove the Catholic Church is the One, True, Holy, Apostolic Roman Catholic Church which Christ and the Holy Ghost instituted at Pentecost. Your sola scriptura and sola fede posture was indelibly instituted in petulant minds during Luther’s heresy. I just came across a list of his theses nailed to the cathedral door and you know what? They read like a lunatic binge. That guy was NUTS!

            Anyway, since I’m having to move my household today and the rest of the week, and my wife is nagging me like a female basketball coach on the rag, I have to bow out for now. When I catch a few minutes, I can cut and paste and narrate on the entire theology of the Eucharist, but it will be much later tonight, I imagine. Have a beautiful Sunday, by the way, as I cart my soul into Hell.

          • petroskhan

            Please, attend to your family matters, home moving, etc. This should most certainly be a spare time issue, and I would never want to intrude upon nor take time from vastly more important matters.

            And, just to make certain that you know where I stand, I’m not a “Protestant” in the sense you seem to be taking it. I do not belong to any church at the moment, in fact. I simply read, study and follow the teachings of the Bible. I have, in fact, spent over 30 years in studying it (no, not full time). So, I have nothing either for or against Mr. Luther either way. I think what he did took some courage, but I also don’t agree with him on a few issues as well.

            So, have fun with the move (if possible), and keep the wife happy. After 26 years of marriage, I’ve learned that it’s just less headache to make sure she’s happy.

          • pete1589

            Well, actually, after 37 years of marriage, there ain’t NUTHIN’ that will make wives happy! We men are worthless, by all social measures, at least by those of the feminists, black pride, gay pride, and all the other liberal tenets which the liberal press promulgates with impunity!

          • petroskhan

            No argument on that one…

          • pete1589

            Okay, let’s take the Eucharist, which is the Source and Summit of the Faith. If you follow this link, you will hear a former priest speak eloquently about it. His fall since has nothing to do with the Truth of what he preaches here, so please give a listen. Thanks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BaTnW-IVqg

          • petroskhan

            All right, here’s my thoughts on the Eucharist:

            The Catholic Church tells it this way:
            Para 1365: “Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: ‘This is my body which is given for you’ and ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.’ In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’”

            Para 1368: The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

            Para 1376: “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that 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.’”

            Para 1377: “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”

            Para 1378: “Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. ‘The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.’”

            Para 2181: “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.”

            So, let’s sum that up, just to make it clear and easy to discuss, okay?

            – First off, it’s a sacrifice. Over and over, a repeating death/sacrifice of Christ.

            – Second off, the RCC claims that the bread and wine actually and literally become flesh and blood. Not symbolically, but literally and truly.

            – The Eucharist is to be worshiped, on equal footing with God Himself.

            – Not taking part in the Eucharist is a “grave sin”.

            Now, what do I think of this? In short, not very much.

            First point: How could Christ be offering His flesh and blood, when He was sitting right there? Unless He was speaking figuratively, it makes no sense at all.

            Next, why would He be offering Himself as a sacrifice the day before He was offering Himself up as a sacrifice?

            If the Eucharist is literally and actually Christ sacrificing Himself each and every time, then this is in direct opposition to Scripture, as shown by these verses:

            Hebrews 7:26-27: For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

            Once…not over and over again.

            Hebrews 9:24-28: For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.

            “Not that He should offer Himself often…”, “…so Christ was offered once…” Pretty clear, right?

            Hebrews 10:14: For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

            “…by one offering”; again, a clear message that His offer, His sacrifice was done but once.

            1 Peter 3:18a: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.

            Notice in each of the verses above, it clearly states that Christ offered Himself ONCE.

            Also, in stating that not taking part in the Eucharist is a sin, the RCC is stating, in essence, that salvation depends on works, or actions on our part, and NOT by grace, as stated in Acts 16:30-31

            It seems to me that the Bible is clear. Christ died once, offered Himself ONCE for our sins. Any view to the contrary is opposing the Bible, and placing those who espouse such doctrines against the clearly expressed will of God.

            It’s a symbolic, memorial observance. Nothing more. It’s not magical, it’s not crucial to Salvation, it’s just something done in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. That’s it.

            So, we have two sides regarding the Eucharist. “I don’t believe in it because God says so”, and “I believe in it because the Catholic Church says so.” I know who I’m going with. How about you?

          • pete1589

            - First off, it’s a sacrifice. Over and over, a repeating death/sacrifice of Christ.

            Once, for ALL. Which means that we are literally taken directly back through space and time to Golgotha and the Crucifixion at the words of consecration.

            - Second off, the RCC claims that the bread and wine actually and literally become flesh and blood. Not symbolically, but literally and truly.

            Well, actually there have been copious Eucharistic miracles, which you can view in a youtube search if you’re interested, And, further, one just happened in a parish near where I live, and which I got on video on my IPhone. It shows the Host literally bleeding and wounded.

            - The Eucharist is to be worshiped on equal footing with God Himself.

            Because Jesus said so. He said He and the Father are One. In John 6 He repeated about 16 times the fact that you MUST eat His Body and drink His Blood, otherwise, THERE IS NO LIFE IN YOU. The Jews understood Him explicitly, were outraged and indignant, questioned Him in the exact same manner you are doubting Him and “walked with Him no longer.” They understood Him, why don’t you? He then turned to Peter, who also did not understand, but responded, “You have the words of everlasting life. To whom shall we turn.”

            - Not taking part in the Eucharist is a “grave sin”.

            Because, again, Jesus clearly stated that “unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, there is no life in you.” If that is such a critical, inescapably “if-then” statement, that NOT to do so puts your soul at risk for all eternity, then how can it NOT be a grave sin?

            You see, Petro, you seem to be attempting to reduce Jesus Christ to a mere man. You are not giving Him the dignity of being One Person in the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). What you are missing is that He is, in fact, God, along with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Thus, what could possibly be lacking in His Infinite Power to cross all the dimensions of time and space to make Himself present in the Eucharist? Did not God create time and space? Did Jesus not command the storm to cease? Did He not cast out innumerable demons? Did He not cleanse lepers? Did He not walk through the locked doors to the Apostles who were hiding for their very lives? Did He not raise Lazarus from the dead? I could go on and on, but don’t you think limiting Jesus in such a manner in saying that the Eucharist must be held in accordance with your interpretation rather than the Church’s (which gave you the Bible in the first place and, thus, has final say about its interpretation, unified as it has been for 2,000 years, while all the PROTESTant sects are thoroughly divided into chaotic interpretations, each according to his own whim and appetite and ego) is taking a huge risk with your position in eternity?

            You mention more protests against the Church’s stance, and I will get to those as soon as I can. Meanwhile, I would recommend John Martignoni’s excellent apologetic website, http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/home.php, where you can have each of your abundant questions referenced and responded to, if you tire of waiting for me to get back. God bless, Petro!

          • petroskhan

            I’ve been puzzled by a common trait among various people who follow doctrines contrary to the Bible. The trait is quite prevalent, but curious nonetheless.
            The trait to which I am referring is this: When confronted by clear Scripture, the attempted refutation/justification takes the form of dogma and, pardon the term, rhetoric penned by men.
            I clearly cited Scripture, the wording of which demonstrates that the RCC stance and ideology behind the Eucharist is not only flawed, but contrary to the expressed, clear doctrine of the Bible. In response to this, you present no Scripture, no reference from the Bible…
            You originally claim (or rather, the RCC claims, and you agree) that His sacrifice was repeated over and over (in Para 1365 – “Para 1365: “Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice.”), yet when I demonstrate that such was not the case, you now wish to alter not only the meaning given by the RCC, but the very intent of the activity.
            I cite Scripture demonstrating that Christ died once for us, and in response, you state, “we are literally taken directly back through space and time to Golgotha and the Crucifixion”. I am wondering…can you provide a Scriptural source for this assumption of time travel? I have studied the Bible for a great many years, yet find no reference to such. Not only that, I find no doctrine of the RCC which claims this. It is clear from the wording of the Catechism that the RCC espouses the continuing, repetitive sacrifice of Christ, not time travel. It is equally clear from Scripture that this viewpoint is wrong.
            Also, the very basis for the doctrine is flawed, as well. In Para 1376, it states ““The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread…” Christ did NOT say that the bread He held forth was “truly” His body. He said, “This is my body”. Not literally, not in reality. He was, by all common sense and logic, speaking figuratively. He would not, as a Jew, espouse cannibalism, nor would He condone the drinking (literally) of blood. A good treatment of this is found in Gill’s Exposition of the Bible (and no, I’m not a Baptist):
            “And said, take, eat, this is my body;
            in Luke it is added, “which is given for you”, ( Luke 22:19 ) ; that is, unto death, as a sacrifice for sin; and by the Apostle Paul, ( 1 Corinthians 11:24 ) , “which is broken for you”; as that bread then was, and so expressive of his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death, for them. Now when he says, “this is my body”, he cannot mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews in the eating of their passover used to say of the unleavened bread,
            “this is “the bread of affliction”, which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.”
            Not that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and distress their fathers were in at that time: to which some think our Lord here alludes: though rather, the reference is to the passover lamb, which is frequently, in Jewish writings, called “the body” of the lamb: thus mention being made of the bringing of the herbs, the unleavened bread, and the sauce “Charoseth”, with other things to the master of the house, it is added:
            “and in the sanctuary (whilst that stood) they bring unto him, “the body of the lamb”.”
            Again, elsewhere it is said,
            “they bring a table furnished, and on it the bitter herbs and other greens, and the unleavened bread, and the sauce, “and the body of the paschal lamb”.”
            And a little further,
            “he recites the blessing, blessed art thou O Lord for the eating of the passover, and he eats, “of the body of the passover”.”
            And now it is, as if Christ had said, you have had “the body” of the lamb set before you, and have eaten of it, in commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and as a type of me the true passover, quickly to be sacrificed; and this rite of eating the body of the paschal lamb is now to cease; and I do here by this bread, in an emblematical way, set before you “my body”, which is to be given to obtain spiritual deliverance, and eternal redemption for you; in remembrance of which, you, and all my followers in successive generations, are to take and eat of it, till I come. The words, “take, eat”, show that Christ did not put the bread into the mouths of the disciples, but they took it in their hands, and ate it; expressive of taking and receiving Christ by the hand of faith, and feeding on him in a spiritual manner.”
            So, there is not only logic and common sense for His speaking figuratively, but very clear precedent. In no way can the “transubstantiation” of the RCC be supported by Scripture. And lastly, should you continue reading to verse 29, you will find Christ Himself saying this: “But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Not blood, not His literal blood, but “…fruit of the vine…” Rather telling, wouldn’t you say? You can tell me whatever you like regarding what the RCC has to say on the subject, but I will stick to the words of Christ.
            As for worshipping the Eucharist, NOTHING is on equal footing with God. He alone is worthy of our worship, and He alone WILL be worshiped. To do otherwise is to commit blasphemy, and defy His explicit command to the contrary.
            As for the “grave sin” part…the taking of the bread and the wine was a symbol, as I’ve shown, of accepting Christ, and His sacrifice, into our lives, and into our very selves. It is a symbol, not of consumption, but of oneness with Christ, taking Him into our hearts, into our very selves. Since He is the mediator, the only intermediary, between us and God, not accepting Him and His sacrifice into ourselves would be turning our backs on God, saying, in essence, that we did not wish to be saved. Therefore, we would have no life – especially no life after this one.
            “but don’t you think limiting Jesus in such a manner in saying that the Eucharist must be held in accordance with your interpretation rather than the Church’s (which gave you the Bible in the first place and, thus, has final say about its interpretation, unified as it has been for 2,000 years, while all the PROTESTant sects are thoroughly divided into chaotic interpretations, each according to his own whim and appetite and ego) is taking a huge risk with your position in eternity?”
            Couple of parts to go into on this one. First, I’m not limiting Jesus in any way. I am sticking to what He said, and what the apostles reported of His words. That should be clear.
            Second, the RCC didn’t give me the Bible. God did. He used the early church as His tool to deliver it, but that is where its importance ceases. When you have your car repaired, you don’t thank the socket wrenches and screwdrivers for the job they did; you thank the mechanic. Tools are the means by which action is accomplished, not the driving force and motivation behind the action.
            Also, the RCC doesn’t have final say in anything. God has final say in everything, and even your Pope needs to remember that. The Bible doesn’t need “interpretation”. Understanding, yes. Study, yes. But when people (and that includes the RCC) start “interpreting” clearly worded directives, that leads inexorably to fallacy and misuse of the Scriptures. Stick to what’s stated, and you’ll be much safer. Here, and in the hereafter. Following unScriptural “interpretations” is “taking a huge risk with your position in eternity”.

          • pete1589

            Wow.

            Quote: “Christ did NOT say that the bread He held forth was “truly” His body. He said, “‘This is my body’”

            Do you not see a complete lapse of logic in your posture concerning that statement? You are very much like my protest-ant sister, who insists that when Jesus stated (in both her Bible and yours) that “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, there is no life in you.” that he couldn’t POSSIBLY have meant “ingest”!! Well, if eat DOESN’T mean ingest, then what on earth DOES it mean?

            Now, if the word “is” fails to mean IS, then WHAT on earth DOES it mean???

            If it means, as you premise, figuratively, then you MUST qualify that premise against the EXPLICIT use of the language Christ uses. If it was to mean figuratively, then WHERE is the word “like”? As in “This is like my body.” But HE DIDN’T. And the Jews who were listening to His “diatribe” in John 6 were in no way or means confused about what He was stating. And He did NOT run after them hollering, “Hold on, hold on, you don’t understand, I’m just using a metaphore here!” And they would not walk with Him any longer. But Peter, also highly confused, still could not leave, because Jesus had “the words of everlasting life.” And for this reason Peter was made the first Pope.

            Is the conscience some sort of oracle or imperial, infallible power that yours simply CAN’T be convicted beyond it’s own, uniquely “logical” premises? Or does the fact that the Catholic Church preceded the canon of the Bible mean it has primacy and authority in the interpretation of the vast number of Christ’s teaching contained in the New Testament, and what Peter, Paul, James, John et al. had to say in the Epistles?

            If not, please explain how your own reading of the Bible trumps any Catholic teaching, or, even better, how your, unique, well-studied and self-justified interpretation of Holy Writ trumps each and any of the multitude of the over 59,000 different protest-ant sects, from which you hold yourself in reserve, maintaining you are no protestant. Yet, because your interpretation differs from that of the Church which defined the canon of the Bible and has taught the EXACT same theology for 2,000+ years, you are indeed functionally and practically exactly so, protest-ant!

            But, you can’t admit of it, no matter the evidence. This is what is called invincible ignorance dominated by a supreme conscience. Yet the conscience is vastly in variance from one person to another, and from one sect to another, and there is NOTHING that every protestant or sola scripturist or sola fideist agrees upon … SAVE THE “FACT” THAT THE INDESTRUCTIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON.

            If the Catholic Church maintains for 2,000 years the EXACT same teaching as that passed down by the Apostles …

            and the Methodist cannot agree with the Presbyterian, nor he with the Congregationalist, nor he with the Baptist, nor he with the Mormon, nor he with the Christian Scientist, nor he with any of the other 59,000 sects, or the millions of whom form their own, personal “truth” from nothing more than their own conscience, and have no greater authority that this personal logic to guarantee their salvation …

            then which authority has the greater power, that of the unchanging teaching of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Roman Catholic Church, or your conscience?

            When both your conscience and mine are vaporized by the tortures of death, and our souls are before God awaiting Judgment, I will rejoice that, no matter how depraved my sinfulness has been, worse now since my “conversion” than it was before in my depraved secular ignorance, that at least I had a chance to be Catholic, knowing it was the only Church instituted by Christ and the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, and which taught relentlessly exactly what God permitted It to teach, because Christ said, “Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven,” and thus giving the unifying power of the Holy Spirit to guide Her throughout the millenia, teaching over and over and over again, exactly what the Spirit in His unifying strength guided Her to teach, and not the divisive, fractional, dissipating, dissolving, emaciating and emasculating spirit of satan who divides and conquers using the exact same sin he committed with God, pride of conscience before the Will of God.

          • petroskhan

            How about, in regards to what the bread and wine were, we apply some simple logic. That is usually the best course, I would think you will agree.

            He said, ““Take, eat; this is My body.” We agree on that. He said those words. Was He speaking literally or figuratively? There is where we seem to disagree. In order to determine whether it was literal or figurative, a couple of things need to be determined.

            One – Did Christ speak figuratively on other occasions, without it being recorded EXPLICITLY that He was doing so? In other words, is there precedent for this proposal? Let’s see…

            In John 16:25, Jesus Himself says that He had been speaking “figuratively”. The verses preceding 25 do not seem to be anything too confusing or symbolic, yet Christ says He has been speaking figuratively. Most likely, His reference is to the “little while” of which He spoke. “A little while” for Him might not be so little for the Apostles, hence His caution that He had speaking figuratively.

            In John 10:6-7, we find this: “This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. 7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.” Now, if John had not recorded that Jesus was using a figure of speech, would you actually believe that Jesus meant that he was a literal door? I mean, He DID say, “truly I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep”, right? So, without us being explicitly told, by your logic, you would assume that our Savior was a walking, talking, miracle working door…of farm animals. Right?

            In John 3, when talking to Nicodemus, Jesus told him that a man had to be born again; was that literal or figurative? Nicodemus was confused…are you?

            In Matthew 16, when the Apostles forgot to bring bread, Jesus warned them about the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” He had to tell them that He wasn’t talking about literal bread, but teachings.

            He also said that if your right eye caused you to sin, you should yank it out of your head. Was that literal as well? How about a plank in your eye? Ever seen someone with that rather uncomfortable problem? Ever?

            Is it so odd, then, that He would once again, at the last meal He was to have with His followers, that He would make use of a figure of speech, or use symbolism to illustrate a point? From the above citations, it is quite obvious that He did so many times in the past. So, we can see that He did frequently employ figures of speech, or symbolic language, to convey a deeper message to His disciples.

            So, we have it answered that speaking figuratively has a precedent (several, in fact); we can say with certainty that it is possible that He would do so.

            The other option is that He was being literal. Let’s examine that, okay?

            Would Christ advocate cannibalism, and the drinking of blood? The answer is “No, He would not.” Whatever else He might have been, He was a Jew, and He followed the Law throughout His life. Eating people, and drinking blood, were strictly forbidden. How, then, can one assume that there is some magical/mystical transformation taking place in bread and wine that would force one to violate the Law? And on what do you base the assumption that some transformation takes place? Stating that some sort of “transubstantiation” takes place is adding to the words of the Bible, adding a message that is not there. He held out some bread, and said, “…this is my flesh.” The RCC has made the assumption that He was being literal, and then ADDS TO HIS MESSAGE some unfounded assumption that some mystical change took place in a loaf of bread.

            So, we have several instances where Christ spoke figuratively to convey a message (usually lost on His disciples), added to the fact that eating human flesh, and drinking blood, are prohibited by Jewish Law. Compounding that, there is NOTHING in Scripture that states that any sort of change took place in the bread/wine.

            In fact, your position (the RCC position) is, in fact, doing EXACTLY what the disciples did whenever He spoke figuratively to them. They took His words as being literal, causing Him to have to explain simple things to them, as though they were rather dull-witted children. We have so many examples of Our Savior speaking figuratively, and then having to explain that He was doing such to His closest followers. Is that really the pattern you want to follow? You really want to stand before Him and say you were just taking His words at face value, without looking for deeper meaning? I think He had rather enough of that, don’t you?

            As for me being a Protestant, well, I guess according to the exact definition of the word, I am. What I meant to convey was that I belong to no denomination which goes by that name. In the eyes of the RCC, since I disagree with them, and I’m not a Catholic, I’m a Protestant…by default, if you will. I’ll agree with you on that one. LOL

            And I’m not going to say that the Catholic Church is definitely the “Wh@re of Babylon”. I don’t know. That was a vision, which requires a LOT of study to understand, and even then, how can anyone state he is certain until it is revealed? I will say only that certain traits seem to match. That’s it. Am I certain? No. Have I referred to the RCC as such? I think I have, but I will admit, once again, I don’t think it’s possible to state it with certainty. In that investigation, call them “a person of interest”, as the police would say.

            As far as the RCC not changing over the course of roughly 2,000 years? Don’t take this the wrong way, but so what? It proves nothing, pardon me for saying this, except that a desire for power, wealth and influence can assist an organization in surviving. Look over the history of the RCC throughout the ages, and one will find a great deal to regret. Wicca has been around longer than the RCC; does that make them “more right” than Catholics? Same for Buddhism; they’re older…are they right?

            Longevity and age are meaningless. Number of followers, meaningless. Let’s leave that out of the discussion, shall we? It both proves and means nothing, and adds the same to the conversation.

            We’re talking about adherence to Scripture, nothing more. And that is where, as I’ve shown above, the Eucharist (its meaning and “interpretation) of the RCC falls short.

            By the way, thank you very, very much for your time thus far, and for the civil tone. I have actually enjoyed this discussion to this point; I hope you have as well. The polite exchange of ideas (and disagreements) is refreshing and much appreciated.

            God Bless, brother.

          • pete1589

            3:15. And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

            3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

          • petroskhan

            Well, that’s not really any sort of reply to what I’ve addressed in my last post, but let’s run with it, shall we?

            First off, it would make for a better citation if you included v.14, “Because of this, beloved, looking for these things, be diligent, spotless, and without blemish, that you may be found by Him in peace.”

            Since we know that we are to look for “these things”, namely, the New Heavens and New Earth, we need to be on our guard to be “diligent, spotless, and without blemish”, as Peter says. In order to achieve this, we must always be on guard against becoming slack in our faith, lax in our adherence to Scripture, and diligently on guard against false doctrines.

            Also, in order to really round out citing those two verses, you should have included v. 17 as well, “Therefore beloved, since you know these things beforehand, guard yourself, lest being led away by the error of the lawless you fall from your own steadfastness.”

            Far too many people simply believe what they’re told, and fail to check the doctrines of an impressively large organization against the Bible. Far too many think that their knowledge and expertise can never match that of the learned scholars who represent these doctrines. What they fail to realize is that when you study the Bible with humble submission to Our Lord, it is not YOUR knowledge and insight upon which you must rely, but God’s. Humbly search the Scriptures, and as they say, “Prove all things”, and you can’t go wrong.

  • hamaneggs

    Believers of evolution do not let the Physical Facts ,that prove the failure of their “theory” ,get in the way of their million year old propaganda that they use to “dumb down” the children and the “usefull idiots’ needed to empower them to control “The People” by Immoral means! Forgive Them Father for They Know Not What They Do! AMEN!

  • Gerald N Wrigt

    To say the flood ended 4361 years ago is to espouse an exactness of dating by Bible geneaologies that is simply not possible. Bishop Ussher’s calculations were based upon a number of assumptions and failures to factor in calendar changes, co-regency of kings, firstborn considerations, calling a person “father” when he was a grandfather, on and on. We don’t need an exact age of the universe to refute evolution. I am a young age Creationist and don’t accept large numbers over the approximate numbers you can derive from the Old Testament … but not the exact age the Lord did not reveal or even say was relevant or important. The only exact age revealed in the Bible is “seven days old” after the completion of creation. See my book, “The Supreme Scientist, chapter 18. Thanks for you site and work.
    Mahalo,
    Gerald Wright
    http://www.Biblical-books.com

ABOUT US | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY COPYRIGHT © 2014. CREATIONREVOLUTION.COM IS A MEMBER OF Liberty Alliance. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Proudly built by WPDevelopers