Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Hamilton, Ontario, Jan. 28, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian archaeologist Russell Adams, a professor at McMaster University has recently unearthed evidence, which helps to show the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
The evidence flies in the face of a common belief that Edom actually came into existence at least 200 years later.
According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, the group’s findings “mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.”
The Kingdom of Edom, mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and a continuous source of hostility for Biblical Israel, is thought to have existed in what is now southern Jordan.
The group made their discovery while investigating a copper mining site called Khirbat en-Nahas.
According to the Globe and Mail, radiocarbon dating of their finds, “firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.”
The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel.
"On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded."
This kind of leap in logic is what is so baffling to me. The Houghton Mifflin company has produced many historically reliable books as well. It does not follow that the Houghton Mifflin company is infallible in any way.
With regard to oral tradition and the New Testament; Jesus left His Apostles (NOT "various writers") with the responsibility of spreading His good news throughout the world after His death and resurrection. From that charge we now have the Gospels and the remaining books of the New Testament. Considering they are based on the good news of Christ's death and resurrection, it would require extreme clairvoyance for the Apostles to write the books of the New Testament before Christ's death. But they did manage to squeek them out before their own deaths. I'm not sure oral tradition plays that key a role in what is essentially an autobiographical account of their own witness of the life of Christ.
"Would Jesus leave us a fallible authority to determine the canon of Scripture?"
You are assuming Jesus is incapable of influencing the actions of man without using the Catholic church. The fallible authority is Jesus Christ himself. Through Him, nothing is impossible. Even without the Catholic church.
"He tells us to take our disputes "to the Church." "
But in this passage, "the Church" is not capitalized. Jesus is referring to the local "church" or the assembled community. Obviously, there was no single church body that resembled anything like today's Roman Catholic Church. This often repeated scripture is used out of context when it is used to imply the overall dominion of "the Church". That simply is not the case. But as you infer, we once again are falling into a spiral argument.
In the final analysis, I see how you put the pieces together, but I disagree with the picture you create. But I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful explanations of the issues we've been discussing. Since this debate has raged for over 500 years, the odds of it being resolved on FreeRepublic are just about zero. But discussing the issues, in a frank, open manner is incredibly constructive toward building understanding if not consensus. I think we can both agree that is a positive step toward greater unity.
Of course he spoke in metaphors. But not always. Do you always speak in metaphors? Can people tell when you are or aren't? Of course they can. Do you correct them if they can't comprehend what you are saying? Of course you do. Jesus did the same. But in this instance he didn't because he had made it very clear he wasn't speaking figuratively. He had deliberately used a word for "eat" that was not subject to metaphoric interpretation.
I do not compare you to those who walked away in the sense that you are suggesting, therefore. They understood what he was saying and rejected it as obviously loony and cannibalistic. You simply misunderstand what he is saying and insist that it is metaphor. You may be compared therefore only in the sense that you both reject the literal meaning as cannibalistic, though it is true you don't walk away.
The concept of a priest holding up the Body of Christ is indeed bizarre. But faith requires it of us because Jesus asks it of us. Do you suppose his disciples didn't know it was a "hard saying"? But Jesus asked the twelve if they would therefore leave him as so many of his other disciples had done, unable to take the literal sense of what he was saying. Jesus had even emphasized his point by using unusually graphic, non-metaphoric language. The apostles answered him--"Where else can we go? You've got the words of eternal life." That's what faith is all about, believing in what can't be rationally explained.
Catholics understand that underneath the physical is the spiritual relationship that physical intimacy brings. We achieve this spiritual relationship in depth by taking into ourselves what we believe is truly the physical Christ. Call it lunacy if you will--but this was what Jesus taught us and this is what was believed by the twelve apostles and this is what the earliest Fathers of the Church believed and this is what has been passed-down to us in faith. It is our belief in this hard saying that takes us to that deeper dimension.
It's logically necessary. If the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth," there must exist a means by which Its truths are communicated. Otherwise, this power would be moot. Taken together with Jesus' command to take our disputes "to the Church," it's impossible to argue otherwise.
And you must first believe that assumption to believe it "logically" flows that the Pope must also teach without error with regard to matters of faith and morals.
By correlating Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7 and Mat 16:19, we see that Jesus appoints Peter as the vice-regent of His Church. Considering that the pope is the head of Christ's Church and Christ's representative on earth, and that the Church must teach faith-truths infallibly, then the pope must be able to teach faith-truths infallibly.
I would argue that what really matters is what Christ Himself says. Not the church.
OK. What does Christ say?
Matthew 18:17Note that Jesus didn't tell us to take our disputes to Scripture. He certainly could have.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
It is quite amazing to me, that the simple phrase "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven," has evolved to mean that the Catholic Church teaches without error.
I didn't argue that. I argued that the keys represent the office of the vice-regent of the House of David, as can be seen from Isaiah 22:22. We know that Jesus is the power behind these keys as the eternal King of the House of David (Rev 3:7) and that he gives the keys to Peter (Mat 16:19) We know that the Church that Christ founded, the Church to which Jesus gave Peter the keys, is called in Scripture the "pillar and foundation of truth." How can such a Church teach erroneous doctrine?
I accept the fact that you believe that. It just doesn't pass my logic test.
I don't see how it could be otherwise.
"On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded." This kind of leap in logic is what is so baffling to me. The Houghton Mifflin company has produced many historically reliable books as well. It does not follow that the Houghton Mifflin company is infallible in any way.
I think this is a summary of steps 1-10 in the argument. I think he fleshed out the rest of the steps further on. Briefly the argument goes --> Bible is a historical document --> It's historically accurate --> It records Christ's prediction that He would build a Church that would last forever and which is the "pillar and foundation of truth" --> A church exists that possesses an unbroken ecclesiastical structure and a non-contradictory body of doctrine --> No comparable earthly institution exists --> Christ's prediction true --> Christ is who He said He was --> Christ's Church is what It says It is --> Christ's Church says that the Bible is inerrant and inspired. QED.
Now this isn't a strictly logical proof, but it's a very strong argument which provides moral certainty.
With regard to oral tradition and the New Testament; Jesus left His Apostles (NOT "various writers") with the responsibility of spreading His good news throughout the world after His death and resurrection. From that charge we now have the Gospels and the remaining books of the New Testament. Considering they are based on the good news of Christ's death and resurrection, it would require extreme clairvoyance for the Apostles to write the books of the New Testament before Christ's death. But they did manage to squeek them out before their own deaths. I'm not sure oral tradition plays that key a role in what is essentially an autobiographical account of their own witness of the life of Christ.
But it plays some role. They record second-hand reports.
"Would Jesus leave us a fallible authority to determine the canon of Scripture?" You are assuming Jesus is incapable of influencing the actions of man without using the Catholic church.
No. I understand that.
The fallible authority is Jesus Christ himself. Through Him, nothing is impossible. Even without the Catholic church.
Yes, but how would we know with certainty what books constitute Scripture without an earthly authority? It took several hundred years for the Church to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to compile the NT.
"He tells us to take our disputes "to the Church." But in this passage, "the Church" is not capitalized. Jesus is referring to the local "church" or the assembled community.
Was this local church different from the one that Christ founded? If so, why would Jesus command anyone to go there? The church would have to be in communion with The Church for Jesus command to make sense.
And what if the local church's teaching is different from another church? How could any dispute be settled?
Obviously, there was no single church body that resembled anything like today's Roman Catholic Church.
How do you know that? Did Jesus found one Church with Peter as Its head, or many churches? What does Scripture say?
This often repeated scripture is used out of context when it is used to imply the overall dominion of "the Church". That simply is not the case.
Again, Jesus founded one Church, not many. Were there local churches? Of course, as there are today. But there weren't many separate Christian churches with conflicting teachings.
In the final analysis, I see how you put the pieces together, but I disagree with the picture you create. But I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful explanations of the issues we've been discussing. Since this debate has raged for over 500 years, the odds of it being resolved on FreeRepublic are just about zero. But discussing the issues, in a frank, open manner is incredibly constructive toward building understanding if not consensus. I think we can both agree that is a positive step toward greater unity.
I appreciate your tone and reasonableness. Let's pray for unity.
I sincerely pity people like you weakly trying to defend hand-me-down made-up theology like transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory and the like. I don't pretend to know it all or understand it all and I can see you don't either based on your ramblings.
"I sincerely pity people like you weakly trying to defend hand-me-down made-up theology like transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory and the like. I don't pretend to know it all or understand it all and I can see you don't either based on your ramblings."
The theology you call hand-me-down is derived from John 6:51-63. You may not like this passage nor take it literally, but the apostles did and the Church Fathers did and Catholics do. Nor do I ramble. I have backed my position up with solid theological argumentation without resorting to insult the way you do.
But you've already misquoted scripture to form the foundation of your necessary logic. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not say "the Church". It says "the church" translated from the Greek word "ekklesia". I would agree that "the church" is the "pillar and foundation of truth", but "the ekklesia" does not mean the Catholic church. If you must change the context of scripture to make it fit your logic, I would suggest your logic is not based on reality. Clearly, you are aware of the difference between "church" and "Church" or you would not change what is written in the Bible. Am I wrong here?
"Taken together with Jesus' command to take our disputes "to the Church,""
Again, you've misquoted scripture and lifted it from its context. In Matthew 18:15, Christ is not talking about a "dispute". And He doesn't say "the Church". He is explaining how to respond to a brother who sins against you. More importantly, He explains that the first two steps to redress his "trespass" don't even include the church. The church is the last step before breaking ties with your brother. Clearly, Christ very carefully describes a process that should end before it gets to the church. And He admits that the church is not always capable of providing a resolution. If He truly were insisting we "take our disputes to the Church", He is directing us to solution that clearly isn't always effective.
"By correlating Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7 and Mat 16:19, we see that Jesus appoints Peter as the vice-regent of His Church."
okay....
"Considering that the pope is the head of Christ's Church and Christ's representative on earth, and that the Church must teach faith-truths infallibly, then the pope must be able to teach faith-truths infallibly."
Back to "spiral logic". Christ never says the Pope is the head of Christ's church. To the contrary, the Bible CLEARLY says Christ is the head of Christ's church. Read Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18. Nor does the Bible say the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth. That is God's role for the Holy Spirit. Read John 14:26. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." Also read John 15:26. Christ says the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of thruth." But when He addresses his disciples, He merely states "and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning." No message of infallibility. No suggestion that they are the Spirit of truth. That is the role of the Holy Spirit. From there, the argument that the Church "must" do anything, infallible or otherwise, falls apart.
"I argued that the keys represent the office of the vice-regent of the House of David, as can be seen from Isaiah 22:22."
I understand that, but what I asked you was what the specific power of the keys means to you. From my study of the Catholic church, the power of the keys has taken immense proportions. But I've never seen those powers defined.
"How can such a Church teach erroneous doctrine? "
Because it is filled with fallible, imperfect, short of God in every respect, humans.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?!? I think you've made a typo here. And the letters of Paul record actual events of his life. Not second hand reports. In fact, I don't believe (I could be wrong) that any of the books of the New Testament with the exception of Acts are written by anyone who isn't describing events that happened to them. And even Acts was written by Luke who was clearly a witness to the life of Christ.
"Yes, but how would we know with certainty what books constitute Scripture without an earthly authority?"
Again, I think you've made a typo here, or perhaps I am misreading what you are saying. The very fact that an earthly authority is involved is what casts the only doubt on the Scripture. Man is inherently flawed. Only God and His designated Helper, the Holy Spirit are capable of providing certainty.
"Was this local church different from the one that Christ founded?"
Absolutely. Jesus hadn't even revealed His death and resurrection to His disciples before He was quoted by Matthew in chapter 18. Are you implying there were Christian churches before Christ died?
" If so, why would Jesus command anyone to go there? The church would have to be in communion with The Church for Jesus command to make sense."
I am under the impression that you believe the Church existed while Christ was still alive. Is that true?
"How do you know that? Did Jesus found one Church with Peter as Its head, or many churches? What does Scripture say?"
It says the church is Christ's body. His body is composed of many parts with Christ Himself at the head.
"But there weren't many separate Christian churches with conflicting teachings."
True. There weren't any.
I am not insulting you. I'm sorry for offending you but this theological claim that bread held by Priests (Catholic Priests I am not sure - not Protestant pastors) is the flesh of Jesus is not supported by scripture.
John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
This is a metaphor for faith in Christ (the living bread) in order to live forever and the sacrifice of Christ's flesh to grant us everlasting life. It says nothing about those in the Church (Priests) holding up a piece of bread and it literally becoming the flesh of Jesus.
There is also no purgatory in scripture. There is nothing in scripture that states that Priests can forgive sins much less a formula for what "partial" percentages can be forgiven. All Christian churches have differences but these ones I've mentioned (and others) are based on strained interpretations of scripture.
You say, "I am not insulting you. I'm sorry for offending you but this theological claim that bread held by Priests (Catholic Priests I am not sure - not Protestant pastors) is the flesh of Jesus is not supported by scripture."
Of course it's supported by Scripture. You simply don't wish to accept the Scriptural statement as literal, that's all--despite the fact that Jesus meant it literally. I notice you quote the passage that is most subject to a metaphoric interpretation: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51.)
What you don't cite is the passage which follows: "In all truth I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have life in you. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life."
Now what's interesting about this is that John describes Jesus as switching from the Greek verb "phago", which means "to eat," to a much more literal-sounding word--"trogo", which means "to chew" or to "gnaw or nibble." In other words, he is making it very clear Jesus is speaking literally, not figuratively. And then, as if to make himself absolutely clear, Jesus adds: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." And the word he uses is the Greek word "alethes" which means "real" in the sense of "actual" or "true". In other words, Jesus is verbally cuing his listeners to receive the literal denotation of what he is saying.
And look at what follows. Those who hear Jesus were immediately shocked. In other words, they understood he was speaking literally. They even complained: "This is a hard saying." And they were indignant: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus was communicating in words that conveyed a literal sense and everything in his listeners rebelled against what he said. And then they walked away.
Nor does Jesus explain to the twelve afterwards that he was only speaking metaphorically. He had explained his parables and metaphors in the past and would do so again in the future. But this one instance he simply lets his literal meaning stand. And remember, these were Semites, Jews, men accustomed to teachings couched in metaphors and parables. Yet in this instance they took him literally. Jesus even asks them if they will therefore also walk away since they have heard what he has just said. They tell him they have faith in him notwithstanding-and affirm their trust in him. But clearly they are baffled.
Now let's fast-forward to the early Church fathers. How was the meaning of the Eucharist transmitted to them from the apostles? In fact it is always in a literal sense. Over and over they affirm its literal meaning. Ignatius, for instance, declares [Smyrn 6,2] that "the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised". He clearly intends this to be taken literally, because he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. Justin Martyr does likewise. So also Irenaeus who teaches that the bread and wine are really, and not symbolically, the Lord's body and blood. Not only this, but the Church fathers were unanimous in recognizing that the Eucharist constituted a SACRIFICE precisely because of the Real Presence of Jesus on the altar.
So sure Jesus spoke in metaphors sometimes. But not in John 6. This is certain because He Himself used lanugage that could only be taken literally. And that was how his listeners actually understood him. And that was also how the apostles and the early Church fathers understood him. And that is how Catholics understand him today.
It's late so I'll save Purgatory for another day.
I don't think that they were eyewitnesses to everything that they recorded, like the Annunciation, etc. Much of their knowledge was passed on to them orally.
"Yes, but how would we know with certainty what books constitute Scripture without an earthly authority?" Again, I think you've made a typo here, or perhaps I am misreading what you are saying. The very fact that an earthly authority is involved is what casts the only doubt on the Scripture. Man is inherently flawed. Only God and His designated Helper, the Holy Spirit are capable of providing certainty.
We need a visible, earthly representative of God to settle any doctrinal matter authoritatively. The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth."
"Was this local church different from the one that Christ founded?" Absolutely. Jesus hadn't even revealed His death and resurrection to His disciples before He was quoted by Matthew in chapter 18. Are you implying there were Christian churches before Christ died?
So Jesus tells us to take our disputes to churches other than the one that He founded?
I am under the impression that you believe the Church existed while Christ was still alive. Is that true?
Yes.
Matthew 16:18The fact that Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the [eternal Davidic] kingdom" makes clear that Jesus isn't speaking in the future tense.And I tell you that you are Rock (Peter), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
"If the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth,"..." But you've already misquoted scripture to form the foundation of your necessary logic. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not say "the Church". It says "the church" translated from the Greek word "ekklesia". I would agree that "the church" is the "pillar and foundation of truth", but "the ekklesia" does not mean the Catholic church.
Again, you've misquoted scripture and lifted it from its context. In Matthew 18:15, Christ is not talking about a "dispute". And He doesn't say "the Church". He is explaining how to respond to a brother who sins against you. More importantly, He explains that the first two steps to redress his "trespass" don't even include the church. The church is the last step before breaking ties with your brother. Clearly, Christ very carefully describes a process that should end before it gets to the church. And He admits that the church is not always capable of providing a resolution. If He truly were insisting we "take our disputes to the Church", He is directing us to solution that clearly isn't always effective.
So when Jesus tells us to take our disagreements to "the church," which one is he speaking of? His Church? Or some offshoot? And why would Jesus command us to take our disputes (obviously including doctrinal disputes) to churches with various doctrines? His command would be nonsensical, which is impossible.
Christ never says the Pope is the head of Christ's church.
...on earth. It seems to me that you've skimmed my argument regarding the office of the vice-regent of the House of David. Is this parallelism coincidental?
Isaiah 22:22Isaiah shows us the historical office of the vice-king of the House of David. Revelation shows us that Jesus is the eternal king of the House of David who is the power behind the keys. In Matthew, Jesus gives the keys of the office of vice-king to Peter. Peter is given the office of Jesus' vice-king or earthly representative.I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be [ Or have been] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be [ Or have been] loosed in heaven.”
Revelation 3:7
[To the Church in Philadelphia] "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
To the contrary, the Bible CLEARLY says Christ is the head of Christ's church. Read Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18.
Agreed. Jesus is the ultimate head of the Church. But His vice-regent or earthly representative was Peter and is the current pope.
But when He addresses his disciples, He merely states "and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning." No message of infallibility.
Not there. Infallibility follows from the Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth." There must exist a certain means for communicating truths for this charism to be operative.
No suggestion that they are the Spirit of truth. That is the role of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is "the soul of the Church."
From my study of the Catholic church, the power of the keys has taken immense proportions. But I've never seen those powers defined.
Where would you like to see those powers defined? And who has the authority to define them?
The Church does. I've cited the sections from the Catechism above.
"How can such a Church teach erroneous doctrine? " Because it is filled with fallible, imperfect, short of God in every respect, humans.
So It's not "the pillar and foundation of truth"? Did the gates of hell prevail against Christ's Church?
III. CONSTITUTION BY CHRISTThe Baptist proclaimed the near approach of the Kingdom of God, and of the Messianic Era. He bade all who would share its blessings prepare themselves by penance. His own mission, he said, was to prepare the way of the Messias. To his disciples he indicated Jesus of Nazareth as the Messias whose advent he had declared (John, i, 29-31). From the very commencement of His ministry Christ laid claim in an explicit way to the Messianic dignity. In the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke, iv, 21) He asserts that the prophecies are fulfilled in His person; He declares that He is greater than Solomon (Luke, xi, 31), more venerable than the Temple (Matt., xii, 6), Lord of the Sabbath (Luke, vi, 5). John, He says, is Elias, the promised forerunner (Matt., xvii, 12); and to John's messengers He vouchsafes the proofs of His Messianic dignity which they request (Luke, vii, 22). He demands implicit faith on the ground of His Divine legation (John, vi, 29). His public entry into Jerusalem was the acceptance by the whole people of a claim again and again reiterated before them. The theme of His preaching throughout is the Kingdom of God which He has come to establish. St. Mark, describing the beginning of His ministry, says that He came into Galilee saying, "The time is accomplished, and the Kingdom of God is at hand". For the kingdom which He was even then establishing in their midst, the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, but a preparation (Luke, xvi, 16; cf. Matt., iv, 23; ix, 35; xiii, 17; xxi, 43; xxiv, 14; Mark, i, 14; Luke, iv, 43; viii, 1; ix, 2, 60; xviii, 17).
When it is asked what is this kingdom of which Christ spoke, there can be but one answer. It is His Church, the society of those who accept His Divine legation, and admit His right to the obedience of faith which He claimed. His whole activity is directed to the establishment of such a society: He organizes it and appoints rulers over it, establishes rites and ceremonies in it, transfers to it the name which had hitherto designated the Jewish Church, and solemnly warns the Jews that the kingdom was no longer theirs, but had been taken from them and given to another people. The several steps taken by Christ in organizing the Church are traced by the Evangelists. He is represented as gathering numerous disciples, but as selecting twelve from their number to be His companions in an especial manner. These share His life. To them He reveals the more hidden parts of His doctrine (Matt., xiii, 11). He sends them as His deputies to preach the kingdom, and bestows on them the power to work miracles. All are bound to accept their message; and those who refuse to listen to them shall meet a fate more terrible than that of Sodom and Gomorra (Matt., x, 1-15). The Sacred Writers speak of these twelve chosen disciples in a manner indicating that they are regarded as forming a corporate body. In several passages they are still termed "the twelve" even when the number, understood literally, would be inexact. The name is applied to them when they have been reduced to eleven by the defection of Judas, on an occasion when only ten of them were present, and again after the appointment of St. Paul has increased their number to thirteen (Luke, xxiv, 33; John, xx, 24; I Cor., xv, 5; Apoc., xxi, 14).
In this constitution of the Apostolate Christ lays the foundation of His Church. But it is not till the action of official Judaism had rendered it manifestly impossible to hope the Jewish Church would admit His claim, that He prescribes for the Church as a body independent of the synagogue and possessed of an administration of her own. After the breach had become definite, He calls the Apostles together and speaks to them of the judicial action of the Church, distinguishing, in an unmistakable manner, between the private individual who undertakes the work of fraternal correction, and the ecclesiastical authority empowered to pronounce a judicial sentence (Matt., xviii, 15-17). To the jurisdiction thus conferred He attached a Divine sanction. A sentence thus pronounced, He assured the Apostles, should be ratified in heaven. A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the chief of the Twelve. For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven -- an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church -- that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the Petrine texts see article PRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the charge of spreading the kingdom among all nations, appointing the rite of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in its privileges (Matt., xxviii, 19).
In the course of this article detailed consideration will be given to the principal characteristics of the Church. Christ's teaching on this point may be briefly summarized here. It is to be a kingdom ruled in His absence by men (Matt., xviii, 18; John, xxi, 17). It is therefore a visible theocracy; and it will be substituted for the Jewish theocracy that has rejected Him (Matt., xxi, 43). In it, until the day of judgment, the bad will be mingled with the good (Matt., xiii, 41). Its extent will be universal (Matt., xxviii, 19), and its duration to the end of time (Matt., xiii, 49); all powers that oppose it shall be crushed (Matt., xxi, 44). Moreover, it will be a supernatural kingdom of truth, in the world, though not of it (John, xviii, 36). It will be one and undivided, and this unity shall be a witness to all men that its founder came from God (John, xvii, 21).
Your linkage to applying this to current day communion is based on Ignatious' opinion not scripture.
Each Christian church and denomination have their own explanation for what takes place during communion. That's fine. It's impossible for us to fully understand. That's why there is faith. My apologies for offending you.
No teacher always speaks in metaphors. Jesus, for instance, spoke of a baptism with water and the Holy Spirit. That is taken literally by all Christians, Protestant and Catholic. Therefore at the least you must concede that sometimes Jesus spoke literally. Catholics would argue this is one of those times. That's why people back then walked away in disgust when they heard Jesus saying such things.
And you are dead wrong about the disciples believing that by a "hard saying" this meant it was difficult to understand. They knew it was something so repulsive that many who had followed him up to that point ceased to do so from that day forward.
Let's review the facts:
1. John describes Jesus as using language that is not subject to metaphoric interpretation. He uses the verb "trogo" which means "to chew"--and he uses this word many times to rub it in. He even uses an adverb which means "real" or "actual"--as in "my flesh is actual food and my blood is actual drink." So all the weight of the semantical evidence is on the side of a literal interpretation.
2. The reaction of Jesus' listeners indicate they caught his literal sense and reacted strongly. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. People walked away for a reason--because they believed he was whacko, talking about something that seemed cannibalistic. Even the 12 found it a hard saying, though they didn't quit following him.
3. Jesus doesn't clear up matters. He lets his literal language stand. He doesn't say that he is speaking in metaphors or parables. Besides, the apostles were men accustomed to a metaphoric interpretation. Had they believed he spoke in metaphors, there would have been no problem--and no need to affirm their faith in spite of everything.
4. The early Church UNIFORMLY believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. How do we know? Because the Ante-Nicene writers said so. Moreover the earliest Eucharistic liturgies were sacrificial. There was the clear understanding that Jesus was being sacrificed over and over in propitiation to the Father. Sacrificial oblation would have been an unlikely liturgical fact had the early Church not believed in the physical reality behind the appearance of bread and wine.
Finally, you don't offend me at all. Why should I be offended if you misconstrue the evidence, not only the internal evidence found in Scripture itself, but also the external historical evidence found in the writings of the earliest Church fathers? Do you think I don't realize that without faith such a view as Catholics hold is unreasonable and even repulsive? Yet it is the one Jesus insisted upon.
Your view, after all, is clearly inconsistent with the evidence. Paradoxically, the Catholic understanding is ultimately the more spiritual because it suggests an intimacy so close that Jesus and the communicant are united physically, making us one and the same before the Father. This is why Jesus says at the Last Supper, "I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you."
There are varying beliefs on this sacrament as well. Oh yes, Catholic teaching on infant baptism. :-) My faith in Christ is what saves me not baptism, not bread, not forgiveness by some Priest, not man-made fine interpretations of theological matters man is unable to fathom. There is with some an apparent lack of humility in such matters only understood by God. We are not called to understand these details now. We called upon to have faith in Jesus Christ. Only as a child will we be saved.
"Why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch him for He had not ascended to His Father? "
It was not that they shoudn't touch Him, but that He was going somewhere else first. That was to see His Father in the Promised land.
"Why did Jesus Jesus cleanse the temple on that particular trip when he had seen those activities His entire life? "
It was time.
"Why did Jesus rise on Sunday? "
Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will rebuild it-the sign of Jonah.
Why did Jesus die on the Passover Friday?"
Passover Friday? He ate the Passover meal the night before. If you want symbolism, this marks the beginning of a 40 hr wandering in the desert. That was not quite up when Jesus met Mary early on Sun.
"Why did Jesus spit in dust and rub the mud in a blind man's eyes? "
To show who He was and what He was about. He followed those motions up with the instruction to wash it out at the Pool of Siloam. Notice John 9 Is mostly an attack on Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and His comment on it. John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Isaiah 8:6 mentions their actions,
"Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
Jesus said neither the man, nor his parents sinned. After failing to cause the man to sin, the frustrated Pharisees replied with the std blind man's response: John 9:34 "...“You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out." To which Jesus says, in John 9:41 “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
There's no use going over every one of these disagreements because you are not likely to be convinced, given your entrenched Protestant perspective. Therefore we can agree to disagree. My only purpose in going toe-to-toe with you in the first place on the Eucharist was to disabuse you of the impression that somehow Catholics believe in things that are ridiculous and bizarre. In fact we believe what Jesus taught us to believe--and which the apostles believed and passed-down to us through the ages. The Church has retained these truths in its deposit of faith to this very day.
By the way, my saying the Catholic liturgy is sacrificial and that Jesus is sacrificed "over and over" is not meant to suggest that anything other than the singular event of the Crucifixion is being re-enacted in the Catholic Liturgy. In fact, it is the one sacrifice only, that of Calvary, re-presented sacramentally at each Mass.
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.