Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
That is generally what the Protestant Christ is: constantly changing his mind, speaking in impossible riddles and chasing away his own disciples.
Not true. Read the first two chapters of Revelation.
All the churches were commended or chastised for different things.
Jesus’ flesh took the stripes for our healing.
His FLESH does not obtain salvation for us. It’s His BLOOD that does that. The BLOOD is for atonement.
Fleshless blood now.. I think this is a more and more confused theology the further it goes.
Bloodless flesh is what the Catholic mass is about. Totally useless without the shedding of blood.
As there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..”
Trying to juxatapose the Protestant interpretation of “the flesh is of no avail” is the problem here.
The obvious reply to this is Augustine's from his commentary in John 6. His quotations of scripture I've placed into italics:
“'They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
This is the plain meaning of these verses, not that we should eat with our teeth and stomach, but, rather, eat Him by faith.
Augustine, by the way, taught Calvin's suprasubstantiation, in contrast to memorialism or the Lutheran view, and definitely not transubstantiation. Calvin in all this merely borrowed from Augustine so heavily that I can almost hear Augustine's voice in Calvin's Institutes! (Even when he's not quoting him.)
Your view misses "This cup is the new covenant in my blood?"
The flesh profits nothing in regard to forgiveness of sin.
The Spirit gives life. The words Jesus spoke are Spirit and life.
Jesus said so Himself.
Not my view. The CCC teachings.....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”188
Yes, they were local churches. Likewise in Corinthians S.t Paul writes chastising them. But these corrections only show that a correction was possible: they had a central source of doctrine.
Not likewise.
Jesus reprimanded the churches in Revelation.
Paul reprimanded the church in Corinth.
Jesus was the authority in Revelation so that little attempt to bolster the claim of centralized authority failed miserably.
No, because instead of suffering a loss of disciples Jesus could have clarified that He was talking strictly about eating as a metaphor of faith. He also would not have said "my flesh is meat indeed" precisely when the literal interpretation seemed so terrifying. Further, it is not possible to say (I paraphrase, see Luke 22 for the precise text) "this bread is my body given up for you, eat it and do the same I just did" about something eaten by merely believing. After all, the commandment to "eat it" cannot be obeyed in any other way but by eating.
Finally, how come St. Paul spoke of Jesus' body that had to be "discerned" in 1 Cor 11? This is not how one encourages faith in general; the faith he was encouraging was precisely faith in the Eucharist being a mystery.
Of course, the Eucharist is deeply sinful without the Catholic faith; but it cannot be equated with faith. There were other commandments that were about faith in general, such as in John 3:16-18 or Matthew 28:20. What sense would it make to give a commandment to have faith, and also give a commandment that says the same thing but metaphorically?
I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. (1 Cor. 4:16)
This is exactly what the verses Augustine cites accomplishes. It makes it clear that Christ is strictly speaking about an eating that is fulfilled through faith, as the answer to their question on how they should do it, is replied with by a call to faith. Not by a call to more eating.
Further, it is not possible to say (I paraphrase, see Luke 22 for the precise text) "this bread is my body given up for you, eat it and do the same I just did" about something eaten by merely believing. After all, the commandment to "eat it" cannot be obeyed in any other way but by eating.
This eating, however, in the Lord's Supper, is not done for salvation, but specifically for remembrance, though in it we do experience a real and spiritual communion with the Body of Christ when we engage in it. The blood of Christ is Christ's blood, and His flesh is flesh, in the faith of the believers who are partaking, as Augustine and Calvin understand it. But this neither saves, nor does it transform into the literal, physical body of Christ, as Paul and Christ Himself declare that it is still very much "the fruit of the vine" even after pronouncing it blood, and declaring that He would drink it again with the Apostles in heaven, and also ate of the allegedly transformed food right then and there, which would mean that Christ ate Himself.
So in these verses we destroy transubstantiation, and in John 6 we destroy literally eating and drinking for salvation.
I think you have a non sequitur here. At the least this is your, human, interpretation - which I believe you said you don't believe in.
If Catholics wanted to argue, like you, based on what is NOT in the scripture they could have easily said something like...
"We invented Christianity and how DARE you defy us about ANYTHING!"
Details: de debble is in ‘em!
OK. Paul said that. Then why do you guys claim to follow Peter?
You post the words, but miss the point.
This relates to “the flesh profit.. “ ?
Your argument is all over the place.
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.