Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Augustine (354-430): “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. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
~ ~ ~
Hi,
And your point? So silly, to use the saints and Catholic writings to try and disprove the faith.
The end times we’re in and the soon Great Tribulation,
Jesus isn’t returning to reveal to the world you can
believe what you wish. That sums up Protestantism.
Which of the 30,000 plus Protestant sects is Our Lord going
to reveal to the world is the one?
I recall reading something to that effect a few years ago, but frankly I never give them much thought and even less credence. I find a lot of their theology and practices to be more directed towards differentiating themselves from anything mainstream and thus attention whoring, than anything theological in nature. It is just another obscure group of people trying to be noticed.
Frankly, I wish they were more like the Amish, Menonites or Hutterites who rejected 21st century technology and remained off the internet and the theological forums.
Where Augustine agrees with scripture, that works for me too!
"Which of the 30,000 plus Protestant sects is Our Lord going to reveal to the world is the one?"
The ones who believe "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
“The word ‘this’ (touto) is a neuter adjective. The word ‘bread’ (artos) is a masculine noun. This means that the neuter adjective ‘this’ is not referring to the masculine noun ‘bread’, because their genders do not correspond” (emphasis mine).”
He overlooks what is described. Jesus broke the bread before ottering it to the disciples, saying “This”.
“This” was not the unbroken loaf (masculine) but a piece or a fragment of the loaf (neuter).
Hence a fragment or piece of a loaf was literally “a break”.
offering! what’s ottering?
The above, absolutely not true. It conflicts with the “continual sacrifice.” You need a priest to offer sacrifice. There is a New Covenant priesthood. There’s that mix of using a few Jewish terms with Protestant heresies. And, why is an “altar” spoken of in Revelation? See the verses which conflict and there are more.
NAsbU Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: Anyone who performs any thing else has blasphemed Altar ? Who is standing there ? Our High Priest - Yah'shua. How do you read the words of Rav Sha'ul ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
NAsbU Hebrews 10:12 but He (Yah'shua),
Our High Priest, Yah'shua has commanded us to have compassion not SACRIFICE.
having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,
SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, NAsbU Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means:
The continual sacrifice occurred once and for all on Calvary.
'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,'(Hosea 6:6)
for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,'(Hosea 6:6)
for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
that Yah'shua's sacrifice was insufficient !
You're not being truthful!
The cup was not removed it was given to Priests at one point during the reformation and the rest of the congregation still received the full Body ,Blood ,Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. Nobody missed out on the full Christ
Your problem is that there are too many of us former Catholics who remember quite clearly the time when BOTH elements of communion were NOT offered to snow us.
I always remember the cup being offered and I am 51 years old.
I don't see modernism as a legitimate theological reason to leave. Certain theological points of protestantism is exactly that,modernism, that does not resemble early Christians pre reformation.
That said, most of mainstream protestantism still adheres to Catholic Doctrine like Infant Baptism,Divinity of Christ etc..
This very church, which at one time had temporal power and did not hesitate to use it to murder and plunder all who dared to rebel
The church did not kill anyone,people kill, and there is no Catholic dogma that condones killing anyone for not agreeing with Catholic Theology. I could point the same finger at the reformers and protestants that killed because they interpret the Bible for allowing it as well as you well know
Why not allow people to speak, let others consider their words and proofs and let the Holy Spirit do what HE does best - convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment?
You are being allowed to speak,I too pray the Holy Spirit opens the hearts as well and also to see error in people like William Webster in his theological misrepresentations of the Church Fathers.
Wow! Do you ever have a surprise coming.
The problem non-Catholics have with the Church isn't censorship, it is the Church not allowing just anyone to speak for the Church. Imagine if we did, we would have more than 33,000 official versions of the Catechism and rampant parish shopping.
Its funny that all of those folks who have at least four Protestant churches (the church I used to attend, the church I'm attending now, the church we are checking out, and that other church I won't set foot in again) all poll as Protestant in all of the surveys we see referenced here and all profess lockstep unanimity on doctrinal issues in this forum.
Peace be with you.
CC to boatbums, not because this post is directed at her, but because I lifted one of her quotes from stfassisi's thread)
None of them. Christ didn’t institute an institution and neither did the apostles. The body of Christ consists of all true believers regardless of where they worship.
“Explain why Jesus didn’t say “This IS a SYMBOL of My body?”
Why should he? He had said, “Take eat this is (estin) my body.”
“Why did He not run after the disbelieving followers and correct them? Stating “no you are wrong, don’t go away, I was speaking symbolically, I was using a metaphor.”
Again, why should he? He didn’t go after the wealthy man that was keeping all the commandments but just couldn’t part with his wealth. Jesus didn’t go back to the ungrateful men he had cured of blindness, did he?
IN EACH CASE THOSE WHO WENT NO FURTHER DISPLAYED THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO GROW IN THE FAITH.
All displayed a degree of hard heartedness so unlike the Samaritan women or the disciples that stayed with Jesus.John 6:62
~ ~ ~
You repeat Our Lord’s exact words and reject them with
a mocking comment.
The in-caps.
Wow! A mouthful, how telling. I have a feeling still, the
person who wrote the above will say “yes” at the Great Warning. Just as prophecy states, you can’t “grow”, mature in the faith without the Eucharist. You need the “grace” of the Real Presence.
On the rich young man, the disciples who walked away in John 6, the two can’t be compared. The young man understood but they didn’t. They are similar to the Protestants objecting here. Catholics tell you the Eucharist is supernatural, it isn’t cannibalism and it gets ignored. The “spirit and life” verse means just that, you have to think supernaturally. Accept that God can come to us in this manner.
John 6:61
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
The comparison is the reaction of Jesus toward the above and the blind men not their reactions to his words. Why do I have to explain the obvious? “Mocking comment”??? Nonsense!
“They are similar to the Protestants objecting here. Catholics tell you the Eucharist is supernatural, it isn’t cannibalism and it gets ignored.”
As well it should be. I don't genuflect and kiss the ring of either here.
“The comparison is the reaction of Jesus toward the above and the blind men not their reactions to his words. Why do I have to explain the obvious? “Mocking comment”??? Nonsense!”
~ ~ ~
Two different situations, one understood and the other, the
disciples didn’t so you can’t compare them.
AMEN!!!
That’s why I didn’t.
John 6:53-58 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever FEEDS ON my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
OK, this is the passage that Catholics use to justify transubstantiation. Why do Catholics die? JESUS SAID THAT WHOEVER ATE (CATHOLICS SAY IT MUST BE DONE PHYSICALLY) WOULD NEVER DIE. If someone is going to be consistent in their Bible interpretation then it must mean that whoever physically eats of the physical body and blood of Jesus will never physically die.
It is the height of hypocrisy and points to deception to interpret verses literally or not on a line by line basis. It violates general principles of interpretation of ANYTHING, much less Scripture.
~ ~ ~
Correction `~(~!.
Catholics don’t say it, Christ does. And the term Our Lord used was “eat” not FEEDS ON.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Non-Catholic Christians reject the Eucharist because the cannot confect it. Protestantism broke away from the faith in the 16th century, they have no priesthood.
And the rest of the comments above don’t require a response,
they obviously can be left.
Very true,dear brother.The cafeteria Catholics also seem to think they can speak for the Church as well but thankfully we have a very Blessed Holy Father in Pope Benedict XVI to shut them down openly in public which gives them a chance to repent and change to conform to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
That’s why I didn’t.
~ ~ ~
I know, I asked, explain the below, the 4th time now. Instead, Protestants always bring up another verse, like
you did, the one about the rich young man and the blind
man healed. Where do you get the authority to say, sometimes Jesus is speaking literally in John 6 when He
says “flesh” and other times the word “flesh” is only
a symbol, a metaphor.
John 6:51-52
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my FLESH, for the life of the world.
Jesus says that the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross. Was that symbolic? If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic...it wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there...it was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood.
Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something. - Plato
Peace be with you.
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.