Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
He wasn't holding himself. Remember "The flesh profiteth nothing" - "this is my flesh". Wow. How dare one transpose two such things - huh? If the flesh profiteth nothing, how do you suppose eating the flesh profiteth anything? The scriptures surely do not say that eating Jesus Body gains one anything. He Said the Spirit is that which profiteth and his words were spiritual ie it is the spiritual issue that profits here - not the eating of bread and drinking of wine but the partaking in the Spiritual truth that Christ being risen is our redemption. Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He's imparting a spiritual truth, not a fleshly one. You can't see the forest for the trees.
Sorry! Dave. I am not trying to smear anyone's faith.
However I'm not kidding. I'm trying to make a point.
The framework that carries the point happens to be the child abuse.
The point is if you put your faith in Man any man. (Red hat or White hat). You are LOST.
I, on the other hand, put my faith in the Word of the L-rd; I can never be disappointed.
The Word of the L-rd never changes.
1Co. 2:4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and
persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's
power,
1Co. 2:5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on
God's power.
chuck <truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach>
And you'll find that milk is considered as the basics of the faith - things like Jesus died for our sins. The meat refers to the far deeper things - ie the more staunchly spiritual things which require the Spirit to understand. If people still are in need of milk, they are still spiritually blind in a relative sense. Much as Babies are blisfully ignorant while they suckle. Most are blissfully ignorant of the scriptures and what the actually say while they are suckled on philosophy, logic and reason dressed up as whole milk. If the milk itself is sour, there is no hope that the babe will proceed in health to ever eat real meat. Perverting the scriptural milk you may as well forget the meat because the meat will not be handled well if the stomache has never known the milk. The apostles taught and wrote scripture. If you can't stick to that, then you aren't feeding from the right source to begin with. Don't presume to talk about milk and meat if you presume to sell us artificial milk and soy products for meat. It isn't the same nor does it have the same effects.
Up to your usual trick I see.
Well. If you look back you will see that Reggie asked me what my opinion was about Augustine's view of Scriptural authority. With the implied premise that it fit sola scritura more closely than the RC notion of God communicating with man through church's written word and tradition. So it would seem perfectly natural for me to respond to his request. What seems unnatural is your need to reply in that fashion. Just lonely tonight?
As for who cares about what Augustine has to say? I hope it doesn't hurt your feelings to point out that it's probably the vast majority of Christians (RC&NC) who would rather hear his thoughts than yours or mine.
I recognize (and agree) that he has no special authority beyond where he agrees with what was handed down, but when we disagree about what is handed down, the recognized fathers of the church are good sources for the debate. Certainly more so than your internal inter[r You would rather that we merely accept your personal interpretation of scripture as being the same thing as scripture itself. I have not seen any track record in that regard that would cause me to lean toward your interpretation and away from Augustine. In fact, the last discussion I remember (I think it was the bit about the dead having nothing to do with earth) you kept adding words into the text (in parenthesis). Of course the parenthetical additions made all the difference in interpreting the text. In my Book that isn't kosher. Mine says something about avoiding it. Hope the rest of your evening goes well. :)
It does not say that. Although whether it is implied is precisely what we are discussing.
If A and Not B ?????????? Is this AB?
If by AB you mean "A and B" then yes, it fit's the equation. "If notA or notB then not A and notB" If that statement is "true" than it is also "true" to say "if notB then notA and notB" regardless of whethe it is "A" or "notA". That, of course, is what "or" is all about. So it follows that if "if you eat the bread or drink the cup unworthily, you are guilty of the body and blood of Christ" is a "true" statement (and of course it is) then if you eat the bread unworthily you are guilty of the body and blood - regardless of whether you ever even saw the cup.
Clearly metaphors? No.
We'll respectfully disagree here. Absolutely yes these are metaphors.
They were not committing a sacrilege. Lev 17:14 discusses Jew's taking of blood. John 6:53-58 make it proper to drink the blood of the Victim to receive life.
In Lev. 17:14, the reference is to all blood, not just that of animals taken, but any living entity. It's funny how metaphors are taken literally and things to be taken literally are spiritualized and treated like metaphors. As stated in another post, context rules and the context in John 6 is about the Passover and eating, so it's easy for Jesus to use language and metaphors that relate to what's on their minds.
The language used for "eat" is throughout the Bible, but the nowhere in the NT is one of the many words used for "eat" used in conjunction with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. John uses in John 6:53-58 the only form of eat that refers to mastication as opposed to general eating. The Greek word is trogo (sorry, can't get the diacritics to show up) which is used to depict one who is engaging in the process of masticating the food he is consuming. Why did John not use the more generic word for eating - phago? Because there was to be no doubt about what we were to do. And note that phago and trogon were not interchanged in verses 53-58. I believe there can be no doubt as to what John met.
Possibly my concordance is wrong, but phago is used as "eat" in John 6:53 and 58. It is also used in verses 5, 23, 26, twice in 31, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the same chapter. Trogo is used in verses 54, 56, 57 and 58 with the word translated as "eateth." The only other time trogo appears is in Mt. 24:38 where it is rendered "eating." This is according to the KJV and I am not going to look the words up in the DRB. This interchanging of words does leave one to wonder what John did mean. The important issue is in verse 63 where the "words" are "spirit" and "life." God's Word and His Spirit are intertwined and bring life to the natural man who is dead in his sins. Read Ps. 119 and see the many times this connection is stated.
Luke 22:19 uses the Greek word anamnesis ("remembrance") which is used in connection with the sacrifice, at the least within a context that is sacrificial in nature. When Christ tells the apostles to "... do this in remembrance of me...", it is more than a commemoration of the Last Supper that Christ is referring to.
I agree that the word anamnesis refers to more than commemorating the Last Supper. If by sacrificial in nature you mean all the benefits Christ procured for us by His death on the cross, then we also agree on this point. I just completed a teaching on the things freely given us by God the very instant a person is saved. In it there were 66 major benefits with several others incorporated. That's what we're to remember and commorate as most assuredly be exceedlingly thankful for.
St. Paul drives that points home:
24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
- 1 Cor 11:24-25 (DRB)
Other than a few word differences,the DRB and the KJV are similar. It's important to note what Paul doesn't drive home. He does not say as in Mt. 26:28 "which is shed for many for the remission of sins," or in Mk. 14:24, "which is shed for many." Luke in his more global view, says in Lk. 22:20, "which is shed for you." Of course the context in 1Cor. is much different in that Paul is addressing a body of believers who were abusing the "remembrance." In the Gospel accounts, the Nation Israel was being addressed, hence "the many," not the all. 1Tim. 2:4 tells us that God will is for "all" to be saved, not just the "many."
Looking at the construct of Luke 22:19, we can see that anamnesis refers to sacrifice:
My response above suffices. If not, then we disagree because the only other use that I'm aware of is to associate oneself with the event in remembrance. Paul gives us a definition of remembrance in 1Cor. 11:26. The Bible is the best interpreter of itself.
Please read 1 Cor 10 and tell me if you believe that the Eucharist is eschatological salvation or judgment or both. St. Paul warned the Corinthians to become much more serious about the Eucharist, to treat it as a holy meal, and if they do not, they will be profaning something very holy and suffer the same fates as recounted in Exodus 32, Numbers 25, Numbers 21.
Paul has been rebuking and admonishing the Corinthian believers because of their bad behavior. As a result, they were carnal and babes in Christ, not mature even though they had received instruction for somewhere around three years. They, among other things, were profaning the breaking of the bread. However, Paul tells them earlier in 1Cor. 3 that the fire shall reveal the quality of what they build their doctrines on. So these Corinthians are not subject to the curses and punishments for the Jews for two reasons; first is they are already believers and secondly they are under grace not law. Since they are believers, they are saved from the wrath of God the very instant they believed and were saved unto eternal life. If that's your definition of eschatological salvation, then you're correct. If your definition is that this salvation only occurs at the end times, then we disagree.
John 6 makes clear what Jesus said we must do "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood".
He says "do" this if you are a Jew under the law. Note this is conditional. We are saved by and operate under God's grace and not the law. Under grace, we're told "don't do" because Christ did it all for us on the cross. That's why we celebrate the Lord's Supper.
No. I wouldn't say so at all. I'm not exactly sure how to put my thoughts on this into words, so I won't be held accountable for trying. Ok?
I absolutely am open to the possibility that I personally am wrong. I have even had my faith shaken (both in the church and in God - kind of "I believe. Help thou my unbelief!") and it would be something less than God Himself appearing to me to change my heart. I know too many people on both sides of the fence who sincerely follow Christ to assume that God intended everyone on the other side to be wholly deceived (tis a shame you don't feel the same way) about the things of God. So I cannot say that I am 100% certain to be a Catholic Christian when I finish the race. (I can say that I will finish this race - with Christ's help). I can also say, however, that I have seen very little that gives me doubt of it.
At the same time I must point out that I feel that it is incumbent upon us to conform our will to the will of God - and not the other way around. I believe that if you are Catholic (or any denomination) because "they agree with 90% of what I believe" than you set yourself up in the place of God. This is the sin that I fear too many on the other side have fallen into. They look around until they find a church that already teaches what they believe and pick that one. This is really conforming God's will to our own instead of the other way around. So how can I avoid that? You all say that the Spirit guides you in truth and that the scriptures speak clearly, yet you rarely have a uniformity of belief on the issues. Am I to believe that one of you (you of course, Mack) is the correct one and the others do not really have the Spirit? That they are not really Christians? Or shall I believe that some or all of you are earnestly seeking Christ and still have a weakened will, a disordered appetite, or some other sinfull bent (as do I) that leads them away from correct doctrine but not necessarilt away from Christ?
I've said it before. I believe that we will be in heaven because of Christ's sacrifice and because of our faith in Him. Not because of our correct interpretation of precisely >how that sacrifice is played out in each Christian's life or what precisely constitutes "faith" in Christ. There will be no theology exam at the gates that day, merely His shed blood.
You see, my friend, I believe that your incorrect doctrine (and mine) is sin - plain and simple, but nothing more than that. And, like every other sin, it is entirely dealt with by the cross. Not "the keys", not "Sola Scriptura", not "Sola Fide" or any other point of argument. The Cross.
Hope that answers the question. - Peace
Hey. Leave me out of the "cookie wars". I didn't get it either. :)
Let's pick this one up again later, OK? I'll see what I can find apart from a freshman logic textbook. It seems pretty clear that the one implies the other but Dave seemed to be saying that only the KJV rendered it that way. That's not a good starting point for me.
I do, however, not get why you and Jim want to go down an argument road that seems to presuppose that Christ did mean that the bread and wine were His body and blood and that the Catholics merely fall short of truth because the do not take both at every service?
Sorry. I missed this reply and just saw it referenced in Reggie's later post.
I think I've dealt with that before. I've always found it amazing that people can use "my words are spirit and they are life" to contradict what His words actually were. Yes. His words are life. Including the words just preceeding that verse. That it is His body.
You should reference your Bible quotes as a help.
My mistake. I thought it was the verse we were discussing and would be obvious. I'll try to do better.
but it still does not state here nor in the Gospels that it is His blood,
Um. Are you trying to say that it was recorded wrong on Matthew's version? That Luke renders it correctly? It most certainly does say "this is my blood". "of the new testament/covenant" can only be a modifier. You can argue whether Christ meant it literaly or metaphorically, but you can't say it doesn't say it - only that it doesn;t mean it.
That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
This pretty much sums up the problem I had with your earlier post. If you make a statement and somebody says "where is that in Scripture" and you reply merely "where is it refuted in Scripture" you bump heads with "that which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience." So I asked "how can you believe one and the other at the same time" (all replies have been paraphrased to protect the guilty because I'm too lazy to search back that far - I hope I'm not too far off)
Sorry. I just looked it up and it may be that the KJV is the only one that translates it "and" instead of "or". In fact, I find from the KJV Greek lexicon that the Greek is translated as follows:
Definition
either, or, than
King James Word Usage - Total: 356
or 259, than 38, either 8, or else 5, nor 5, not translated 21, miscellaneous 20
"And" must fall under "miscellaneous". I wonder why someone would translate "or" as "and"? It couldn't have been just for this issue (could it?). What reason would there be to presume that it should be rendered that way.
I know that reading the last paragraph in the wrong tone of voice makes it seem mocking. I do not intend it as such. I honestly wonder what the rationale is. "And" and "or" are not really overlapping concepts (in Greek or English). I think that "and" and "but" are actually overlapping in Greek (but not english), but I don't see where this came from. Could it be like Luther's "Faith alone"?
BigMack
Mack. Have you been seeing other Catholics behind my back?
sob...
You could have at least used a different "pick up line".
:-)
Reggie has an excellent point here. I would like this shown to me as well. Thank you in advance.
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.