Posted on 03/15/2013 10:51:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well,here's how it works:
When Jesus said he was the "door to the sheepfold", did he have to remember to explain he wasn't a real door? When Jesus said he was the "bread of life", did he have to be sure to add he wasn't saying he could be baked in an oven and used for a sandwich? When he taught that he was the "water of life" and whoever drank of him would never thirst, did he have to include that he didn't mean his bodily fluids could be dispensed and literally drunk? The obvious answer is no, of course not. The Jewish people were accustomed to the use of idioms and symbolical language. They grew up with Almighty God Jehovah likening himself to a mother hen guarding her chicks and as a husband who must deal with an unfaithful wife among other types. Somehow, I just don't think Jesus thought that he would have to explain OBVIOUS simile's. There was no need for him to "label his words as a parable", because the manner in which he taught THIS lesson was not the same as his parables. They just got it that he was not, could not possibly, be meaning his literal flesh and blood had to be physically consumed.
It was only centuries later that certain theologians started trying to interpret this lesson as literal and came up with the idea that explained how the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper observance actually became the real flesh and blood of Christ in order to make such a "sacrament" a regular and obligatory act necessary to BE saved. And, of course, they had to develop the "laws" that governed who was legitimately able to confect such miraculous changes and the office of the Catholic priesthood was born. But to insist that this doctrine was ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE believed in the same way by everyone, is simply false.
5,000 a week, astounding!
Babtist Church (sp)
It is spelled Baptist. It comes from the Bible.
John the Baptist started the practice of baptizing and in fact baptized Jesus.
If you read the word often, the spelling will come natural to you.
I suggest starting with the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
Oh an BTW, if no one is keeping track, where did you get your figure of 40,000? (Probably up to 40,200 from the time you posted and this reply)
YAWN
John 10:6 clearly describes Jesus’ discussion of the sheepfold in John 10:7 as a ‘parable.’
No such clarification is written to clarify the discussion in John Chapter 6.
Why is that?
Why would Jesus repeat himself, making it clear that we should ‘knaw’ on his flesh, all while the divine writer fails to clarify, as it is clarified over and over in the Bible when Jesus speaks in parables, if he was in fact speaking in terms of a parable?
You were also already told, "As for why we see Jn. 6 as figurative, see one of the recent debates like here and here and links.
And you will not escape answering me by asking for what was already provided you.
Since you invoked Jn. 6:53 which plainly states, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53) and as you hold this to be literal, then you must believe that one can have no life in himself unless he physically consumes the Lord's literal flesh, and otherwise he remains dead. Correct?
You mean as here ?
There were many times when Jesus did not "clarify" his words and he used symbolic language in his teaching many times WITHOUT using parables. This was one such case. I kinda think he knew people understood his message if it was given to them to understand by the Holy Spirit. Even in John 6, Jesus says he knew already who would receive him and who wouldn't. Do you think the apostles who stuck around really imagined Jesus was going to lop off a piece of his body and give it to them to gnaw on? What, he was gonna slit his wrists to drain his blood into a cup right there so they could drink it? Again, these were ALL Jewish people who "got it" when someone spoke figuratively. Drinking blood was forbidden in the Old Testament as was eating human flesh. Such talk, if it WAS to be taken literally would have given the religious leaders real grounds to charge Jesus with blasphemy and violating the Law of Moses. They wouldn't have needed to trump up anything to execute him. As a matter of fact, when Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin and later Pilate, they made no mention at all of it, did they?
Explain to me why it is ONLY in the Gospel of John that this subject was brought up. If it is such a critical doctrine to get right, why is it found NOWHERE else? We find Paul describing the observance of the Lord's Supper, the Love Feast as it was also called, but he said NOTHING about the bread and wine being literally changed into the flesh and blood of Jesus. In fact, if anyone wants to be honest about it, they know good and well that that piece of cracker NEVER physically changes. IT'S ALL SPIRITUAL! You are to imagine or have faith that it did, indeed, change from what it once was even though there is no observable change. Why can't this simple truth be accepted for what it is? Jesus was talking about his REAL flesh being broken and his REAL blood being shed for the propitiation of our sins but the participating in the communion service was to be an outward expression of what had been spiritually consumed - by faith. We eat and drink Christ when we believe in him, when we receive the gift of everlasting life by the grace of God through faith.
For Catholics, shame on us for arguing, when we know better. At least I am guilty of pride, when having rocks thrown by at least equally imperfect sinners. Sometimes you just have to laugh and let it go.
Titus 3:9-11 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Proverbs 20:3 It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling.
Proverbs 17:14 The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out.
2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
Proverbs 26:21 As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife.
1 John 2:1-29 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: ...
James 4:1 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?
James 4:2 You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.
1 Corinthians 13:5 Or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
Proverbs 21:19 It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.
There are many more, and really we Catholics should know better.
For your information, I am shooting my fingers off.
Just kidding...
Curious, though. What part of my posts do you find untrue?
Definitely not cute and it is caffeine.
Pick any of the derogatory, belittling,or demeaning comments you have made on this thread or previous threads about the Catholic Church. Myself and quite a few other Catholic have shown both scriptural and historical reasons for every single Doctrinal/ dogmatic belief.
If you choose not to share our beliefs that is your choice. You don't see any of us demeaning or belittling your church.
You are engaging in the exact same Alinsky activities that liberals do. Please think about this and post with christian charity.
Scriptural?
"St. Bonaventure says, '...the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary.' St. Ephrem calls devotion to the divine Mother 'the unlocking of the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem,' Blosius also says, 'To thee, O Lady, are committed the keys and the treasures of the kingdom of heaven.' And therefore we ought constantly to PRAY TO HER, in the words of St. Ambrose, 'Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its keys.' Nay more, the Church says, 'Thou art its gate.'"
This is from "The Glories of Mary (Redemptorist Fathers, 1931), pp 161ff.
Scriptural? This is "Alinsky" propaganda, my FRiend. Those committed to the Scriptures, the believers in Christ, alone, denounce this fantastic fiction as leading folks away from the pure truth of Jesus, the Rescuer of Israel, the Son of God, the Holy One.
There is no "christian charity" in the Roman organization promulgating this kind of ungodly, demonic, doctrine from hell. We are calling to those in the chains of Rome to escape into the light of Jesus, alone...if He permits.
I will pray for your soul.
" Jesus was talking about his REAL flesh being broken and his REAL blood being shed for the propitiation of our sins but the participating in the communion service was to be an outward expression of what had been spiritually consumed - by faith. We eat and drink Christ when we believe in him"Fits right in with what Paul said and helps clarify how communion wishes us to comprehend what Jesus did for us at His crucifixion:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.--Galatians 2:20Brings to mind this bit of Scripture:
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.--John 14:20This is also the main scripture used to show how Christians have a PERSONAL relationship with God.
We are in Jesus and He is in the Father. What a great place from which to live our lives! Double wrapped in God.
That is a kind thing to offer. I have just returned the favor.
Over and over again. Come BACK to the Catholic church, accusing every poster that is not Catholic of being a Protestant, and those are just the mild ones.
Are you new to the RF?
Oh and could you answer dutchboy88's question with examples?
Curious, though. What part of my posts do you find untrue?
If you claim to Christian, and you are not Catholic, exactly what are you?
Right on the money. Here is Boniface VIII... "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctum 1302AD
If Catholics would break out of the denominational mindset that they are in and really understand that the body of Christ is NOT a denomination, but rather the the individual true believers of Him irrespective of church affiliation, they would find it less incredulous.
However, being conditioned to think that a man made denomination is the “true” church, it is impossible for them to see it. Catholics need to learn to think out of the box they’ve been out in and that takes a work of the Holy Spirit.
So, ask Him to give you understanding of it. He will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.