Posted on 02/23/2016 8:17:35 AM PST by Salvation
Thanks anyway but I am aware of all of that.
No need to google something I already know, and that doesn’t address the issue I was discussing with you.
You didn’t answer my question, no problem I’m used to the diversions when posters don’t want to reveal what ever it is they fear.
It seems to be a mountain out of a molehill as you even state that using verse #s has become indispensable as technical references for Bible study.
Yet you seem to go out of your way to make them out to be un-Catholic to consider. Maybe because Catholics didn’t think of it first? I dunno and is of no consequence.
My pilgrimage is over and has been for decades back when I became a Christian and a member of the REAL body of Christ.
Catholicism seems to follow the We’re on our way but aren’t there yet, but fully saved born again Christian folks don’t as we have assurance of salvation as Jesus promised.
Scripture references available upon request.
We take Jesus at His Word and are not influenced away from it by the doctrines of Catholicism.
No problem you skirting the request to post the quote from a/or Catholic version as it has been shown and acknowledged even by Catholics to have errors.
There are a few Catholic posters that discount everything someone says if they make thypos or grammatical errors but I don’t do that. It’s childish as it’s easy to see what is meant even with thypos or other minor errors as one types.
Oh and just a hint about your blue font in many of our posts.
It would be easier to read if it wasn’t posted as a block of text without paragraph or at least line breaks.
Would have helped with the royal (purple) text in your reply I am responding to but I made an effort to read it.
BTW when I read the Bible I pretty much ignore the verse numbers unless I wish to reference them to help those that are lost to see the way to a relationship with Jesus that leads to everlasting life with God.
They serve as line breaks and make the text more readable.
Imagine if the whole bible was only printed as a giant wall of text?
That would be almost as bad as what was done in the past by Catholicism, not letting the “little” people have copies of the Bible and killing those that tried to make them available.
Some here still tell us OTC Christians that we should only accept the interpretations of the Bible done by Catholics but we prefer the Holy Spirit over the declarations of fallible men.
Never, fella. The disciples at the Last Supper were all Jews, still under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant, and ordained to observe Seder, Jesus not yet having fully fulfilled The Law. The wine could only be at that point a symbol of The Blood of the New Covenant. There was no overlap of the two. And People of The Way, the Company of the Committed were not denominated "Christians" until long after, in the Antioch of Syria. So your question has no foundation and is irrelevant.
What difference does your queston make. Without some kind of direct connection, what one did in another thread has no bearing on what that person is doing here, today, in this thread.
What is your purpose in bringing this up?
So, you did not answer the question... Here it is again. We can’t go further until you answer this simple question. I am asking YOU:
What do YOU mean by Jewish Law?
Do you commit sin(s) on an hourly basis? Daily? Weekly?
Do you think you can just go on and on and on like that?
The bottom line is we are all sinners on a daily basis. We can never be good enough to earn Heaven.
The shed blood of Christ does indeed cover ALL of our sins. Big ones....little ones. It doesn't matter it you say it or think it....it's still a sin. Ephesians 2:1 makes this point clear.
Colossians 2:13-14 tells us our sins have been nailed to the cross and that they have been removed. The Greek behind the word removed means rubbed out...gone. All of our sins.
The shed blood of Christ is more than sufficient to cover any sin we commit. If it's not, then we have a problem.
I have business so a reply to your latest inanity will come later, Until then imardmd1 is well worth you reading,
Jesus is not explaining the wafer in John 6. He is explaining Himself as the source of life. His incarnation and His atonement were essential in providing that life, so there is no gnosticism here. But the means of acquiring it is not to eat His flesh as men understand that, but to feed on His words, that is, to have faith in Him, and what he has done for us.
I have not been following this thread much but that is obvious and alone is consistent with the rest of Scripture in which spiritual life is never obtained by physically eating anything, nor is that said to spiritually nourish souls, but it is by believing the gospel message with effectual faith that one has his heart purified by faith and is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-11) And it is the word that is said to "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, by which the pastors are to "feed the church," (Acts 20:28,32) the primary ordained charge being prayer and to "preach the word." (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2) Thus nowhere in the life of the church (Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels) is the Lord's supper preached as the means of regeneration, or even sees much emphasis or centrality, in stark contrast to Catholicism.
Nowhere (unlike preaching, praying, fellowship etc.) is consuming the elements preached as a means of grace or remedy for the many spiritual problems in the many places such are dealt with, nor is consuming them commended as a testimony to their faithfulness, including in the Lord's critiques of the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2+3 (nor is submission to the pope mentioned as such). And nowhere do we see a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests" offering the elements as an sacrifice for sin, or being charged with doing so as part of their distinctive ordained functions, in contrast to preaching the word.
And in the only book (outside of the mention of the "feat of charity in Jude 1:14) in which the Lord's Supper is manifestly mentioned in the life of the church (1Co. 10:14-33; 11:20-34) then the focus is not on the nature of the elements, but on body of Christ which the Lord purchased with His sinless shed blood. And which death, and the love behind it, believers are to remember and thus show/declare/proclaim (1Co. 11:26) till He comes by sharing food, "breaking bread" with each other as being members of that body. In contrast to which was that of eating selfishly eating independently, with some being full and others hungry, which effectively was to "shame them which have not," (1Co. 11:21,22) treating them as if they were outcasts, completely contrary to the very thing that they were supposed to be remembering and thus showing. And thus Paul says that in reality they really were not coming together to eat the Lord's Supper, (1Co. 11:20) as such did not effectually recognize/discern the Lord's body as consisting of every believer, but hypocritically took part in it to their own condemnation. (1Co. 11:26-29)
Even if one want to argue that this description does not deny the literalistic understanding of the Lord's supper, the contextual reality is that it is church as the body of Christ that is the focus here (and proceeds into the next chapter) and was not being effectually recognized/discerned. Even the notes to the Catholic NAB states,
It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).
The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25) - http://www.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11:27#54011027-1
In John 6, which does not even mention the Lord's Supper, RCs emphasize Jn. 6:53,54, invoking it as being as much the absolute imperative that other "very verily" commands convey, yet as such it would exclude all those who reject the literalistic position, which thus is a denial of modern Rome which generally affirms properly baptized Prots as born again (separated) brethren. But as RCs interpret their church differently, which criticizing use when we do so as regards Scripture, there are some who deny what Lumen Gentium affirms, or hold it as non-binding, since in their judgment it contradicts historical teaching. Yet in this case then at least they would be consistent with their use of John 6:53, though inconsistent with Scripture.
Their other common argument is that of Jews who took the Lord literally not being given an explanation otherwise, but which is nothing new, as the Lord let such go one believing that "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19) referred to the physical temple, esp. since He just cleaned house with it, and which misapprehension resulted in that being a charge at His trial.
Moreover, the Lord's reference to water, which was taken to be physical, was never given much of an explanation outside of it springing up to give one eternal life, which in isolation a devout literal thinking cultist could argue would be the result of physically drinking this water.
Yet in response to the query "How can this man give us his flesh to eat," the Lord does give explanation, first by making it analogous to how the Lord Jesus lived by the Father: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) And as He stated how we are to live is clear: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) then thus the Lord - once again using metaphor which abounds in John - stated that obeying that word, doing the Father's will was His "meat." "But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:32-34)
And what alone is consistent with Scripture in regards to the two interpretations is that it is by ingesting the word of God, as to "eat them" (Jeremiah 15:16) letting "these sayings sink down into your ears" (Luke 9:44) in faith then one finds life, (Acts 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and lives by the word-made-flesh by living by every word of God, "letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom. (Colossians 3:16)
Furthermore, while carnal seekers (which here had come looking for another free physical feeding) once again understood the Lord as speaking of the physical, the Lord further explained,
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (John 6:61-64)
Note that there was nothing in the Lord's words about somehow eating Christ physically yet it not being His actually bloody flesh, which requires the Neoplatonic Cath explanation, but under the purely literal take then the Lord would be offering His actual flesh, which was what the departing Jews found troubling, and thus if the Lord ascended then this flesh would no longer be here to offer. But rather than linking this to the Lord's Supper, which John conspicuously does not do and never mentions the "take eat, this is my body" words seen in the synoptic gospels, instead the Lord speaks that which is consistent with the rest of John and the NT, which is never that of literally physically consuming anything in order to obtain spiritual life, but that the transcendent "words that I speak unto you, they are spirit," by which cannot one how hears them and believes can obtain spiritual life, versus needing a priest and transubstantiated elements to consume. That the use of metaphorical language here alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture is abundantly evident;
Consider first that David distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.
And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)
To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,
The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)
And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)
While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)
But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)
Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)
John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a metaphysical explanation to justify.
More by God's grace.
Finally, I appreciate your patience and work here, but for devout RCs all must be made to conform to her teaching, no matter how specious, thus the often recourse to bare assertions or spitwads when reproved.
If error is being posted, truth is going to be posted.
If no one ever posts the truth, then how can anyone know the truth and how can error be exposed?
I await the documentation about the infighting over which books were going to be included in the first place.
IOW, you have to work at your salvation to try to attain it.
It's really a shame that so many people are being snowed into thinking that's the way to get to heaven because they are going to find out the hard way someday, that that is wrong.
We are saved THEN sanctified. Only the saved are sanctified, set apart when they are saved.
We cannot be sanctified into salvation.
Are you cross threading there?
To use this verse to say that Jesus spent much of the chapter insisting that His flesh is "meat indeed" is something that Rome has done.
Jesus stated FLATLY; in verse 29; what the REQUIREMENT of GOD was.
To come along later in the same chapter and try to emphasize something about meat is; well; just silly.
Dang!
A bunch of Catholics agreeing about something that Rome came up with!
WHOODA thunk!
Too bad that the book Rome assembled says something else:
John 6:47 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
--Hal9000
And it was magically transmogrified into the newly invented Communion; which is NOT listed at all in Acts 15.
Strange that you'd ask this question and then give Scripture describing what the JEWISH experience had been.
Perhaps a careful reading of Acts 15 can shed light on the answer.
REALLY?
Daily versus annually??
Did the early Catholics have such a POOR attention span that the ritual had to done DAILY or they'd FORGET?
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.