ping
Nope. Yeshua was talking pure symbolism.
I remember the good ole days when a kid could get his first taste of liquor at church.
The rich young ruler met Christ face to face and walked away fro Him. Jesus had told him what he needed for eternal life. When he walked away we have no record of Jesus chasing him down to talk with Him again. He does not force Himself on anyone.
I don't know, but Genesis 2:7 is.
Are you Catholic (I already know the answer since I read your profile page)? Since the answer I know is no, why do you care what the Catholics believe? You and a couple other posters seem to believe your faiths can only be justified if you attack Catholics. AND I know I’m going to hear from those - why stop by this thread? And it is my last post to this thread but I’m saddened that someone who is filled with such venom can only find relief by attacking the faith of others.
When I see Catholic threads it usually doesn’t take long until I see you and your compatriots attacking people on those threads too. I hope God has mercy on your soul!
Regarding transubstantiation, note that Jesus referred to the wine as the “fruit of the vine” in Matthew 26:29 after he had symbolically referred to it as “my blood of the covenant” [emphasis added].
It’s not surprising that many Christians evidently also don’t know the Constitution well enough to protect themselves from political attacks by state and federal governments.
If it's other so long as attributed to the Christian faith, than it's not: "the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people".
I have no problem believing in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. It's men I have problems believing in.
Luke 22:19-20 (KJV)
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
There's the red letter edition.
So impantation, consubstantiation, memorialism are okay with me.
...The Mass is supposed to be a re-sacrifice of Christ
can’t one find someone who understands Catholic doctrine, even if they disagree with it?
or is it done on purpose?
hmm.......
Pretty strange to use THAT PARTICULAR NUMBERED PASSAGE, isn’t it???
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A
funny, Ignatius of Antioch quoted above learned the faith from the human author of John 6, the Apostle John.
I will leave it to the reader to decide if Ignatius believed the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ.
those following the 16th century tradition of men are merely recycling the unbelief of the Gnostics.
Chapter numbers were added by Stephen Langton, who would later become the Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury in 1211 A.D.
The Chapter and verse numbers are not in the original documents, just like Sola Scriptura.
Yes, chapter and verse numbers are a tradition of men.
I would suggest finding a Bible that doesn't use them, if you don't want to follow a human tradition.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. for any one who eats and drinks without DISCERNING THE BODY eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
the words speak for themselves and have been understood for 2,000 years now.
for those who don’t understand what the word “discerning” means in 1 Corinthians 11. it means recognize.
“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” - John 6:63
What often gets overlooked in the disagreements over the John 6 “Bread of Life” discourse is that this happened several YEARS before the actual Last Supper and crucifixion. All throughout the gospels we read of people coming to faith in Jesus Christ, believing in Him as Savior and Lord but no mention of any actual rite or ceremony of bread and wine being changed into flesh and blood for someone to physically consume before they were saved. It’s pretty clear that it is by faith/belief how we eat and drink our Savior. Metaphors that were not at all unheard of in Jewish teachings.
Churches in Union with Rome as of the Year 2000
At another link they accept the Anglican church as in partial union. They believe in the real presence.
The Lutheran church I don't see, but they believe in consubstantiation so I learned in Western Civ in college. That means they believe that the sacrament is bread and wine and body and blood at the same time.
Eucharist means thanksgiving or giving thanks.
How could all the churches be wrong? If they are, who was responsible for introducing the error long, long ago?
==========
For the reader who has not studied hermeneutics, here is an example:
Let's get down to brass tacks, by getting the hermeneutics right.
========
In what I just wrote, the whole sentence, normally interpreted, means "Let's examine the basics, the accepted rules for interpreting a passage." The phrase "Let's get down to brass tacks" is figurative-literal language. The literal interpretation of that is "Let's examine the basics."
The phrase "getting the hermeneutics right" is literal language The plain literal interpretation of the phrase is "accepted rules for interpreting a passage."
The rules used to avoid problems are as follows:
A. Normal interpretation is the basic starting point of decoding a passage.
What you read is to be taken as it was written. Unless there is an indication to take it some other way, don't try to find another meaning. The normal interpretation of a Bible passage is the plain literal or obvious interpretation. Confusion arises if something other than what is written is read into it. This makes clear communication impossible. The Bible does not do this.
B. Literal interpretation is normal
The sense of a sentence is the maning of that sentence in ordinary normal conversation or writing. Now, get this: literal interpretation contains both plain literal language and figurative-literal . Unwary people confuse the terms literal language with literal interpretation.
Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is not normal. (But this abnormal method is what the Catholic traditions are based upon.)
C. Only One Primary Interpretation
. . 1. Scripture has but one meaning. There is only one interpretation to which all context lends itself.
. . 2. It applies directly to those addressed, at some time indicated, and must have a specific meaning for them.
. . 3. With this in view, it can be applied to us under similar conditions which exist relative to those conditions prevailing in the context.
. . 4. There may be several secondary applications that agree, but there is only one primary interpretation--one specific, intended meaning.
Examples:
Exodus 15:26 only applies to the Hebrews at the time of the Exodus, not to Christians today, despite common misapplication.
2 Chronicles 7:14 only applies to Israelites in the Holy Land during the Mosaic Covenant, not to Christians in America today under the New Covenant.
D. One Single Sense:
Every statement of Scripture has only one sense (Isa. 53:5 vs 1 Pet. 2:24):
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53:5 AV).
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Pet. 2:24 AV). (This is not about getting over a cold, cancer, or automobile accident. It is about being freed from the power of sin and its guilt, the sin-sickness of the unsaved human.)
"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense" (Dr. David L. Cooper).
"The grammatical sense, in (Karl A. G.) Keil's understanding is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary, and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentence" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.). "Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of it all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err nor go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst but go out of the way" (William Tyndale).
E. Make a distinction between plain literal language and figurative-literal language
. . 1. If the language is plain literal, seek to find out what the word denotes or indicates plainly (Eph. 6:4, provoke not your children to wrath).
. . 2. If the language is figurative-literal, seek to learn what the word or passage connotes or implies (Eph. 6:14, having on the breastplate of righteousness).
. . 3. What is the interpretive key suggested by the image or likeness so vividly portrayed? (John 10:7-10; Jesus = shepherd = door).
F. Expect an abundance of figurative language (not figurative interpretation unless indicated)
Do not be overwhelmed by this, but when it occurs, wind out what the words or the passage means.
G. The Literal Method is Correct because:
. . 1. The Bible passage does not lie to or misdirect the reader
. . 2. It is logical, not nonsensical.
. . 3. The Bible makes sense throughout when interpreted this way.
. . 4. If the interpretation is not literal, it is impossible to communicate or agree on what the passage means.
. . 5. Personal experience bears out the normal interpretation through better understanding of God's mind, God's Ways, and lives spiritually changed.
. . 6. The Lord Jesus Christ interpreted Scripture that way (Mt: 22:43,44) . . 7. Paul interpreted Scripture that way (Heb. 7:17 cf Ps. 110:4; Heb. 8:8-13 cf. Jer. 31:31-34; 1 Tim. 5:18 cf Deut 25:4 and Lk. 10:7)
=========
Now, Jesus educated His disciples to discern figurative language by taking them aside to illustrate His figures of speech in the parables (sower and the seed) and other teaching (David's son being his Lord). By the time He got to the moments described in John 6, they were accustomed to it. So when He said as in the 35th verse moment, ". . . he that cometh to me shall never hunger . . ." Jesus is equating "coming to him" (to follow Him for Spiritual comfort and to be taught Spiritual truths that satisfy our longing for knowledge of Him and His heart) with "not hungering" (that is, He is figuratively spiritual bread, man doth not live literally by bread alone but also by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jesus/God, taken into the soul and spirit for spiritual nourishment) which is the same figuratively as "eating My flesh."
That is normal, literal interpretation of figurative-literal language.
This whole literal approach is denied, disdained, and decried by adherents of the allegorical approach to interpretation of what a Bible passage means, from which comes the inescapable disagreements seen on this forum between the Romanists and the evangelicals.
****************
The above is my adaptation of the treatment of hermeneutics in Lesson 3 of Dr. Fred Wittman's book "Here's How The Bible Can Make Sense To You Today," (click here to see) freely available from Happy Heralds, Inc.
Using the methods contained in this book will help one escape the logical but irrational and unspiritual arguments employed by the followers of Origen and the Alexandrian school of false unbiblical theologians since the end of the second century AD until now.
If it is; then the verses that precede it MUST be true as well:
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
John 6:66 - “returned to their former way of life”
The low road, the wide road which the followers of the Anti-Christ will be on. These that walked away from Jesus are the forerunners of the followers of the Anti-Christ.
The low road, the wide road which even many believers will return to at the end because they won’t find the Supernatural Strength to persevere because they deprive themselves of the Holy Eucharist. The Beast and his followers won’t allow one to participate in the economy without the mark of the Beast (the tracking microchip, which is injected into dogs and some willing human beings already for medical and work reasons and upon initial rollout was said to be best received in the hand or forehead). Without the mark they won’t allow you food, water, medical care, shelter, and on and on. They’ll try to dehydrate and starve you right off the bat like Terri Schiavo.
The Rapture- Denial of the Cross. There are more martyrs today than even in the first century. But those at the end are more special and get magically raptured out? No. They’re imprisoned (go into captivity Rev 13:10) or are beheaded (Rev 20:4; 13:11).
The denial of the need for individual penance - Denial of the Cross. I don’t have to get my disordered appetites under control because Jesus did everything. Then how am I being conformed to the Christ who fasted in the desert for 40 days?
The defense of birth control - Denial of the Cross. How difficult self-control is in this area and so we’ll pretend that the break with the constant Christian teaching and tradition beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1931 was right all along.
Without the Holy Eucharist, we can’t live fully the way Christ wants us to live and so we pretend that our “former way of life”, the low road, the wide way, the easy road, the path of least resistance is the high road.
It’s not.