Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Thank you.
I think everyone ought to hang onto their quarters just a moment. metmom's translation reads:
"the flesh is no help at all"
The key word is ωφελει ("opheliei"), which according to some of the best modern lexical authorities we have, is pretty much exactly what that translation says (and the KJV is in accord):
ὠφελέω ōpheleō to help, benefit, do good 35.2 ὠφελέωa: to provide assistance, with emphasis upon the resulting benefit—‘to help.’ ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν ‘human nature is of no help’ Jn 6:63. Louw-Nida
It should also be noted the word is active, not passive. The saying is NOT that the flesh is not GETTING profit/help/whatever. It's that it's not GIVING said help. This is not a discussion of the alleged dual nature of the Eucharist per transubstantiation. It's simply a repetition of a constant theme in John's presentation of the Gospel:
John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
..where John sets the table as it were for unfolding the conflict between the ineffectiveness of carnal methods in solving problems requiring divine initiative and power.
And here ...
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
... where Jesus is describing the necessity of spiritual new birth, as opposed to the inability of conditions of mere physical birth, in order to see the Kingdom of God.
So drawing this contrast again in John 6:63 just reinforces the evangelistic point John has already been making, that it is by God's spirit and not by any advantage or activity of man that salvation may be found, which in deed is a running theme throughout the whole Bible:
Zec 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
Peace,
SR
PS: AA, still working on the other. Very enriching study, but very time consuming.
So, I don't think "ωφελει" must necessarily be in passive voice in order to indicate profit to self;
However, I see your point, that perhaps looking at the two verbs together:
The spirit ζωοποιουν (gives life; do you know why the conjugation is in plural, by the way?)
The flesh ουκ ωφελει ουδεν (does not help at all)
, and also at the conclusion "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life" we should understand it so that it is the spirit that is in the Eucharist that gives life eternal; not the carnal understanding that sees cannibalism in it.
St. John Chrysostom writes:
CHRYS. He tries to remove their difficulties in another way, as follows, It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing: that is to say, You ought to understand My words in a spiritual sense: he who understands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal meaning, and allow no other. But we should not judge of mysteries in this way; but examine them with the inward eye; i.e. understand them spiritually. It was carnal to doubt how our Lord could give His flesh to eat. What then? Is it not real flesh? Yes, verily. In saying then that the flesh profits nothing, He does not speak of His own flesh, but that of the carnal hearer of His word.
Thank you for pointing this out. I understand that the translation that Metmom offered is indeed possible; I take back my objection. The fact remains that the Eucharist is a mystery that uses the banal act of eating into encounter with Christ. While it is food, it is the kind of food that sustains the spirit.
Making requests of the saints for THEM to answer is NOT asking them to pray to God for us.
Absolute unadulterated HOGWASH.
Scripture is from GOD and GOD ALONE.
Thank you.....
[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; [2] According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: [3] It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [4] That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.(Luke 1)While God most certainly inspired the Holy Evangelists it was the Church that decided which of the gospels (there were far more than 4) are and which aren't inspired, let alone the fact that the authors of the books of the New Testament were also members of the Church.
Show me where in Scripture the Catholic church is named by name and then you might have some basis for claiming that the early church fathers were Catholic.
Stating so after the fact, making them Catholic retroactively, when they never said as much themselves is meaningless.
It’s just an lame attempt at a power grab by the Roman church, trying to justify it by claiming they were all Catholic.
This is not hard to understand in the light of what the Holy Spirit elsewhere teaches. The only evidence of the Spirit (who is also described using figurative language such as water) giving life is in creation and resurrection, and salvation by inwardly receiving the risen Christ, the word made flesh, by believing the gospel message.
Which was not that of preaching the Lord’s supper in order to be born again, nor of making that the primary means of grace and the center of the Christian faith.
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. (Job 33:4)
And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. (Revelation 11:11)
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) (John 7:38-39)
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:5)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; (Acts 15:8)
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Romans 8:10)
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)
It remains that that no one obtained spiritual life by eating,
and that the Holy Spirit often use figurative language in John for Christ Jesus, as well as for eating/drinking elsewhere in Scripture, (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3145004/posts?page=67#67),
including men being called bread for Israel, and drinking water plainly being called the blood of men,
and that RCs are inconsistent in insisting in rejecting these while insisting the language which would have kosher jews drinking human blood is literal,
and in holding that Jn. 6 must be literal yet holding Prots are born again in baptism and have the Spirit as children of God.
More attempts to read into Scripture the foreign pagan ideas of Catholicism amounts to so much special pleading in the light of the rest of Scripture.
Its gone on too long as RCs lack the profound realization of regeneration by personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood and righteousness as contrite damned+destitute sinners. Thus they imagine this “superstantial” health food that the masses consume gives them spiritual and eternal life.
It IS??
Who knew!
The Book disagrees. It says we dead folks will be sleeping in our graves 'til the Last Trump sounds; THEN...
I know you folks are sincere when you think this way; but there is ZERO evidence to point out what you hope for as being true.
I'm sorry; but the Book disagrees with this:
NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
NIV Romans 15:3-4
3. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me."
4. For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Ask; eh?
Just how do you 'ask'?
Send an e-mail?
Call long distance?
Use mental telepathy?
Or do you PRAY?
Dead folks can't help you a bit.
Come now; your church knows Everything about Peter!
Sure do!
When some makes an easily checked claim about something; ANY person would check it out!
Those dang Bereans got me started doing it...
The Early Church was all one, and all Catholic, because in it there was “no Jew and no Greek” — one universal international Church, unified in doctrine.
Also:
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
From:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
The Bereans checked for the prophecies regarding Christ being IN the Old Testament; if they wanted to argue, like you, based on what is NOT in the scripture they could have easily said something like “’Jesus Christ’ is not in the scripture”, or “’Baptism’ is not in the scripture”, or “’Crucifixion’ is not in the Scripture” and they would have rejected St. Paul’s ministry. Be careful what example you pick up to support your heresy.
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.