Was The Papacy Established By Christ?

For those who don't have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow's article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.

Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter:

"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)

Different Catholics interpret these claims of the First Vatican Council in different ways. Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn't have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there's no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.

Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we're going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.

Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn't initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn't be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don't believe that something is true just because it's possible. If we're supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.

If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.

That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.

Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:

"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)

What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.

Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.

So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?

In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.

In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.

Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?

Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.

There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.

A person receives forgiveness of original and actual sins at Baptism later through the Sacrament of Reconciliation then as one follows God’s will throughout one’s life. Then receives God’s judgement when he dies.

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

Christ has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born “saved,” with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God, after having left his family.

“As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation

Your comment:”Matt 23:9Jesus said to call no man up on this earth father.”

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

May God have mercy upon you. That is not what Jesus told the rulers of Israel when they asked Him the same question. From your reply it is apparent that you have no idea what the Gospel of Salvation is about, but such is the legacy of Catholicism.

Justification is a legal proclamation. It is not a decision held for the lifetime of the accused then applied if the accused earns the right to the proclamation. Jesus has been sacrificed ONCE FOR ALL FOREVER. Jesus told the rulers:
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

When they believe, what happens?
Acts 2:1-4 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all with one accord in one place. Suddenly there came from the sky a sound like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Tongues like fire appeared and were distributed to them, and one sat on each of them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit ...
Acts 10:44&45 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word. They of the circumcision who believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was also poured out on the Gentiles.

Justification happens in the minute one does what Jesus told the leaders they must do as the work God requires. God puts the exclamation point on that immediacy with the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the believer.

At this point perhaps you are asking 'so what is the rest of living according to God's commandments supposed to accomplish if not making one worthy of Justification to be received upon death? ... That is a good question.

The Blood of Christ was not for drinking, it was for spreading upon the Mercy Seat in Heaven, so that the law of sin and death was then annulled for all, that is ALL who are in Christ. Paul says: Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Perhaps that causes you to ask, so who is walking 'after the spirit'? what does that mean? Another good question.

When we are born from above, that moment when in this life God justifies us because we place our faith in Christ, He adopts us into His family by the coming into us of His Holy Spirit. RomaNS 8:2-6 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Verse 3 Strongs Parallel Speaking Sacred N Copy/Paste For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

YOU CANNOT BE SPIRITUALLY MINDED IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MUST RE-SACRIFICE JESUS EACH TIME YOU ARE PERSUADTED OF HAVING VIOLATED THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. YOU CANNOT BE SPIRITUALLY MINDED IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MUST DRINK THE BLOOD OF CHRIST TO KEEP ABSOLVING YOUR SINS. Paul says there is therefore now, not after each Eucharist only, no condemnation for those who walk after the spirit. How do you walk after the spirit? ... By faith, by faithing in Him as the perfect Atonement for you and believing His blood covers the law of sin and death for you. When you partake of the Eucharist, you do so as an outward exhibition that you are spiritually accepting His Sacrifice, His blood on the law of sin and death, for you. You are not eating His literal flesh or drinking His literal blood. His blood was shed and spread upon the Mercy Seat for you. His blood was so perfect that it does not need to be shed over and over, into your belly, to cover the law of sin and death for you. You partake of the Eucharist IN REMEMBRANCE of His work for you. In faith you walk not after the flesh but after the spirit that is IN YOU by the presence of His Holy Spirit Who comes when you believe, as illustrated by Pentecost and the House of Cornelius.

When Jesus explained the brass snake on the pole (from Numbers 21), was Jesus saying that brass snake is me or was me, literally? No.

When God declares you Justified because of the Cross of Christ, how many of your behavior sins were int he future of that Cross? All of them. so when God looks at you the moment you believe Jesus paid for All Your Sins, how many of your behaviors are hideden from God's view? None, He sees the end fromt he beginning. so how many sins will you have to get absolution for after you first believe Jesus IS The Christ, your redeemer? None. BUT IN HEAVEN as part of the Bride of Christ, your purification will take place, burning off the wood, hay, and stubble of the life experiences as a member of His family having His Holy Spirit. If any works be left then they will be gold, silver and precious stones. But the key is realizing that life review happens in Heaven, not upon the earth in a daily walk.

When you are walking like a son of Adam, that will be wood, hay or stubble. When you are walking as His Spirit is raising you up in the Way that you should go, well that is most precious in God's sight. He has remembered your sin no more. You can never earn worthiness to be called the sons of God. That is why your Justification is so glorious, because it is only to Christ's Glory that such an astonishing thing can be focused. By trying to keep earning Justification you sully the Glory of What ONLY Christ can give to you and wants to immediately, Life as He has it.

I have NOT ONCE stated that Jesus is wrong. Jesus is God with us, He cannot be wrong. As God, in Leviticus 3:17 He declared For All Their Generations, do not eat the blood. I am continuously saying the catholic church is wrong.

There is no way to be justified before God by any gastronomic process. It IS the Body sacrificed upon the Cross that is for your salvation, not the unleavened bread of the Eucharist which is for the remembrance of the sacrifice. It is by FAITH that you have His sacrifice when you take the unleavened bread, not by ingesting unleavened bread as the literal body of Christ. It is BY FAITH that His blood is shed for you and spread upon the Mercy Seat top cover the law of sin and death for you. It is not by swallowing the literal blood of Christ to be eventually expelled through the drought. Jesus said it is the words that he speaks:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Seeking absolution of sin by deeds of the flesh (eating His body, literally, drinking His blood, literally, constantly going to an institutional priest to confess and get forgiveness of sin, doing alms, doing good deeds) which generate pride in self does not obtain Justification. Of such trusting in works will Jesus declare, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.'

Your comment:”Therefore all those that are born again believers in Jesus will be of one mind on spiritual matters.”
You really believe that?
The protest religions seem to continue make their own interpretations of the Bible. i.e. marriage and divorce, abortion, female clergy, same sex marriage, homosexuality, the Real Presence, etc?

Well when you see any of that, be sure to point those who are on the wrong path to a relationship with Jesus.

Catholicism has their own "interpretations" of the Bible, Mary is the way to salvation, the real presence, etc.

At least one Kennedy was given an annulment after having kids and years of marriage so he could marry another.

Ted Kennedy was given a large mass (funeral service) in a Catholic church and he was a womanizer and a supporter of abortion.

Born again believers in Jesus are those that with all their heart and soul follow Jesus and what He taught.

Yes, they will fall but when they do they bring it to Jesus, our only Mediator between us and God the Father, and our High Priest.

With a repentant heart they are forgiven.

Broad brushing really doesn't cut it.

First of all, please don’t use the term “dear lady,” it’s very condescending.

I used the phrase correctly. You point out the sin and evil of the Catholic church believing the protestant denomination doesn’t have evil or sinful people at all levels. Again, clean your own house first.

I was raised Southern Baptist. The first church we were members of, the preacher was diddling the Secretary and he convinced ALL the deacons to hand over the deed to the pastoral home owned by the church to him. Then he retired. He was a thief and an adulterer.
My parents left disgusted and we joined a different SB church. That preacher was diddling his Secretary as well and they stole a bunch of money and took off.

Now, should every member of the SB convention leave because of sinful, wicked pastors? Can I now judge every single SB the same as the preacher? Of course not. That is ludicrous. And yet the protestants that continuously post these threads do exactly that. One of the many reasons why I became Catholic.

Your comment: “Broad brushing really doesn’t cut it.”

Born again believers in Jesus are those that with all their heart and soul follow Jesus and what He taught.

That is great. I encourage all to do God’s will.

Then they shouldn’t make false statements about the Catholic faith:

If they don’t want to believe in the Real Presence and as Jesus has stated as the food for eternal salvation, then they may not be following God’s will. But to insist that Jesus is wrong with convoluted logic, then they have stepped over the line and Catholics will defend the teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church.

The same with the Blessed Mother. We do not worship Mary, but we place her in high esteem and defend the Church’s teachings.

God will judge Ted Kennedy. I do not understand the annulment of his marriage. If not done properly, the the responsible party will answer to God. The Catholic Church is composed of saints and sinners. I do not understand how any Catholic can vote for a democrat who supports abortion, but then many Catholic women have abortions. Catholics do not always do God’s will. I can imagine God’s disappointment in all of us.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has well thought out positions on the faith based on the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, it seems that the protestors have their personal opinion and weak logic and facts to support their comments.

As far as straying from the Bible, many individuals stray, and many protestant churches have also strayed. For example on marriage:

Faiths Allowing Same-Sex Marriages

United Church of Christ: The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian church to fully support same-sex marriage and perform marriage ceremonies.
Jewish: Reform Judaism embraces same-sex marriage and rabbis can perform ceremonies. Some conservative and re-constructionist synagogues do as well.
Quaker: The willingness to perform gay marriages varies by meetinghouse, but there is some acceptance and performance of same-sex marriages among Quakers.
Metropolitan Community Church
Unitarian Universalist
Unity Church

Faiths Allowing Limited Same-Sex Marriage

Episcopal: In the Episcopal Church, priests are authorized to bless same-sex wedding ceremonies but not declare the marriage official or sign the marriage license. Certain dioceses can perform full marriage ceremonies.
Lutheran: Lutheran churches can decide, on a church-by-church basis, whether or not to perform same-sex marriage.

Faiths Disallowing Same-Sex Marriages

Baptists: Southern Baptist and Conservative Baptist churches will not conduct same-sex marriages, nor will they allow them to be held in their churches. Some American Baptist churches are open and inclusive.
Methodist
Catholic
Presbyterian (some will bless ceremonies)

In addition, I do not know of any Eastern religions which sanction gay marriage and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

From: http://www.gayweddinginstitute.com/_blog/Gay_Weddings_are_Good_for_Business/post/Which_Churches_Allow_Gay_Marriage/

Your comment: “I have NOT ONCE stated that Jesus is wrong.”

I disagree with your statement.

You have ignored the words of Jesus and by your comments accuse Jesus of not speaking the Truth.

John 6
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Matthew 26
The Lord’s Supper. 26* j

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said,

“Take and eat; this is my body.”* k 27

Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Perhaps one’s position is so fixed it can not or will not understand the true meaning of the words of Jesus.

Or perhaps there is so much animosity towards the Catholic Church that unless one becomes a Catholic, then one can not properly receive the Body and Blood of Jesus that Jesus said to Eat and Drink this for everlasting life.

The spirit vs. flesh argument is specious.

"You have ignored the words of Jesus and by your comments accuse Jesus of not speaking the Truth." No, mischaracterizing what I have posted will not support your false accusation. I have accused the catholic church of teaching their sincere seeking adherents false doctrine, such as to drink the literal blood of Jesus.

When Jesus used verily, verily he was always focusing their attention on a spiritual truth He was about to give them. The manna was not the body of Jesus, it was manna, but it foreshadowed the bread from Heaven at the Cross, which is applied to give LIFE by spiritual activation, as in faithing in the Promise of God. I'm not surprised a staunch catholic apologist cannot fathom that, seeing as how Catholicism is a mystery religion.

Your declaration that 'the spirit versus flesh argument is specious' is symptomatic of blindness so deep that you refuse to see.

Here is yet another example, betty boop.

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.