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 |
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.
The difference is symbolism vs. taking what is said literally. Jesus as the Living Word is life and we get His life by believing the gospel, not by the Lord's Supper. A saved person already has Jesus residing in him the very instant he believes and is saved. The issue then becomes Christ living in me and out through me. That's Gal. 2:20. We are also "complete in Him," Col. 2:10, the very instant we are saved, so nothing more can be added to us. Unfortunately some believe the Lord's Supper adds something to them, so I guess that would mean that Col. 2:10 is incorrect or has a different meaning. This is the result of taking a metaphor and treating it literally. As I said in another post, I choose to interpret the word "is" as meaning "symbolizes" or "represents" as used consistently throughout Scripture when metaphors are used.
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.
My point is that the different Gospel writers record what Jesus said differently. In the Luke account, "this cup is the new testament in my blood" is stated. Paul, by direct revelation from Jesus Christ said exactly the same words. By your reasoning, "this cup" then is the subject with "in my blood" modifying the "new testament." You might say it's what's in the cup or that the cup is symbolic. So which is correct?
It's your choice what you choose to believe. What I'm stating is my belief. And since Paul addresses the Body of Christ today, I opt to follow the instructions he provides in 1Cor. 11 for celebrating the Lord's Supper as a remembrance.
Obviously there is disagreement among sacramental Christians on this issue. The RC's hold that it is the Pope. Others would hold it is the bishops, collectively. Sometimes the answer is less clear than others. Sometimes the question is not who laid hands on whom" but "what was the intent." Such is the case with Anglican orders, which are accepted by Orthodox churches but not accepted by Rome.
Even within Anglicanism there are questions as to the validity of the orders of priests in churches that have embraced women's "ordination." So there's more to it than a physical chain of hands upon heads, which is necessary but not sufficient.
No. You went right past it at 100 miles an hour. Back up a step or two and think. Jesus relates spiritual things in terms of fleshly things for example and to confound those who think themselves wise. That is what the parables were for and the Bible so states. Having never seen the spiritual, how do you begin to explain it. How do you explain Green to a blind person? You attempt to relate it to something they do know and can discern. Thus in explaining the spiritual, He continually invokes metaphor. That doesn't mean that the words spirit and metaphor are interchangeable. It means that in explaining the intangible, the tangible is helpful. Putting it in real terms if we consider explaining a motorcycle to a world where one doesn't exist and say "it's like a bicycle." Every motorcycle then would have to have peddles by Catholic doctrine because literal truth is literal truth. It's a bit of a stretch comparatively; but, best I could do for the moment.
Is this a rebuke or correction, or both? What's life if we don't step in it every now and then! What's even more interesting is we have the mind of Christ and the mind of God in His completed Word. While you may disagree, or even have a hearty laugh, I attempt to have an intelligent understanding of God's Word, particularly as relates to us today in the Body of Christ. So while I may not interpret a passage as you might, my basis of understanding is God's Word as revealed to us through His Holy Spirit. 1Cor. 2:9-13 explains it much better than I could even dream of.
But there is. Or at least Havoc hasn't explained himself well. I'll ask him, maybe if he knows you are interested he will answer.
Havoc, are you saying that the flesh of Jesus is of no avail? That the flesh that profits nothing includes the flesh of Jesus?
SD
Unfortunately SD, Havoc has been unable to discuss the use of symbolic and non-symbolic language in John 6. The use of non-symbolic language by Christ does not make Christ or those who believe that liars. I'm sorery that Havoc has said as such.
But it is a different claim. Try to understand. Neither I nor allend nor IMRight nor al_c nor any other Catholic are convinced that we are in all Truth when we read something from the Bible.
You guys are. You made the claim, not us. So is it you or Havoc who is wrong? And if one of you is wrong, is that because the Spirit tells different truths to different people, or because one of you isn't really led by the Holy Spirit?
You claim the Holy Spirit guides the Big C catholic church organization in all doctrine. Right?
Right.
Any doctrine some human being Catholic wants to set up automatically gets the stamp of the Holy Spirit on it.
You have that backwards. Any doctrine the Holy Spirit wants proclaimed is brought forth through the Spirit's action through the Church. Whatever is declared bound on earth is bound in Heaven.
SD
It's supposed to point different people to different conclusions. It serves that purpose by leading the carnally thinking in one of many directions while sending the spiritually minded in the correct direction. Same reason Jesus spoke in parables - to confound the Carnally 'wise'.
And here I thought that one of the tenets of Bible Christians was that the Bible is easily understood. Now we find out that it is a kind of trap, to catch the prideful.
Let me thank you for your honesty. You have no compunctions about your interpretation of Scripture and that those who don't agree are prideful and not spirit led.
There is something to be said for having convictions.
SD
Dumb-dah-dumb-dumb. Dummmmmmmmb. Ok a little dramatic; but, it fits. You're straining at much the same thing Nicodemus strained at and abusing it verbally in a different way. Thank you for illustrating the point. You can't understand because the Spirit has not given you the understanding. You lean on your own reason and that of your clergy. If you don't partake of the sacrifice you cannot have eternal life. You ignore this and act as though it has no bearing until communion comes up. Eating bread and drinking wine is not believing and confessing, else no man could take it unworthily. There is a puzzle for you to ponder till your head explodes. Doesn't fit into your carnal picture. But it fits fully in the context of the spiritual truth being imparted. How many times did you try to crawl back into mama?
Unfortuanatly SD, Havoc has not provided an instance in the NT where spirit is used in a symbolic manner, as opposed to non-symbolic. The lack of such a symbolic reference is important.
Can I get an answer to this question. I demand an answer. Or I'm gonna cry and act like a baby for awhile.
OK. It is pretty clear that those who routinely engage in sin of any kind are not following the Spirit. I think I have the Spirit in me. I think most priests do as well. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at in bringing up wild estimations of the number of homosexual priests.
You still have no concept of how guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit works. You still expect it to mean that every clergyman and every member will be perfect. As long as you misunderstand this, you can continue to smugly throw mud on us and proclaim your goodness.
SD
The same place. I am not one to usually make arguments based upon numbers. If I mention them at all it is in response to slurs. I would imagine even "nominal" Catholics dont' appreciate slurs.
SD
And again, the name calling starts, unfortunately. Even when Scripture is cited, it't not enough to disagree, it's now a matter of SD not being able to understand because the Spirit has not given SD the understanding. SD having the Spirit unfortunately appears to not meet with Havoc's approval.
I think it was you who reminded us that Judaism is not a missionary religion.
Do you just type these things at random, or do you actually think that there is a point here that addresses what I said?
I suppose you think the apostles just happened to find a copy of the Hebrew scriptures that fell out of the sky.
That's because you disrespect the Bible. I don't even know why you bother. You don't need it. Except for John chapter 6. You don't believe the world was destroyed by a flood which has been confirmed in the NT. Smorgassboard is all it is to you.
You guys are. You made the claim, not us.
You make claims that are totally unscriptural. Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Transubstantiation, Papal Authority etc. and then blame it on the Holy Spirit. And now after years of your misinformation, half of the priests are homos. Gee, I'm shocked.
So is it you or Havoc who is wrong?
If you're not going to listen just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself. I told ya he just explained what he meant. I can't help it if you ignore everyone elses posts while you're busy admiring your "alledged" materpieces.
You have that backwards. Any doctrine the Holy Spirit wants proclaimed is brought forth through the Spirit's action through the Church. Whatever is declared bound on earth is bound in Heaven.
Sorry. I can't really see all that at work in your organization. "You shall know them by their fruits".
Dumb-dah-dumb-dumb. Dummmmmmmmb. Ok a little dramatic; but, it fits.
It fits? It's right there in Scripture, in black and white. You act like you've never seen it before.
You're straining at much the same thing Nicodemus strained at and abusing it verbally in a different way. Thank you for illustrating the point. You can't understand because the Spirit has not given you the understanding. You lean on your own reason and that of your clergy. If you don't partake of the sacrifice you cannot have eternal life. You ignore this and act as though it has no bearing until communion comes up. Eating bread and drinking wine is not believing and confessing, else no man could take it unworthily. There is a puzzle for you to ponder till your head explodes. Doesn't fit into your carnal picture. But it fits fully in the context of the spiritual truth being imparted. How many times did you try to crawl back into mama?
You are the ones who strain in disbelief. Jesus tells us we must eat His flesh. Then he gives us a way to do it. And you guys want to totally discount the entire episode. Because you can't get over the fact that God can hold Himself in His hands.
And then you accuse me of thinking carnally. It is to laugh.
Let's look again:
If you don't partake of the sacrifice you cannot have eternal life.
Exactly what we are saying. Jesus provides a way for us to partake of the sacrifice. And you turn it into a play.
You ignore this and act as though it has no bearing until communion comes up.
A lie. One needs faith to even begin to want to participate in the sacrifice.
Eating bread and drinking wine is not believing and confessing,
Exactly. So why do you pretend that "believing and confessing" is eating and drinking bread and wine? Or Jesus body and blood?
else no man could take it unworthily.
It's all about whether one believes or not. If one believes Jesus, has faith, then one eats his flesh worthily. If one has no faith, or scoffs at the notion, then one eats unworthily and is guilty.
SD
So, when you can't discuss facts, logic, reasoning and faith, you take this tack? Wow, you really have a lot of anger, it appears.
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.