I don't know what you are talking about.
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
It's not only good that we keep you amazed, but that we keep you amused also. :-)
I can't speak for every person born, but I know how far I was from escaping the pulls of sin, and how far I was from being perfect.
JH :-)
Yes, and they went out and ordained other bishops, who shared in their authority. Remember Titus, Paul instructs him to act with all authority.
SD
You liked my fonts. ;o)
don't be silly. We were talking about this certain passage. Doesn't verse 63 have some relation to the rest of John 6? If you want to argue that it is unrelated to the Bread of Life discourse above, I'll go along with that.
Of course the passages are related.
Are you, therefore, arguing that JESUS is really bread ?
Or, rather ... is JESUS bread in a figurative sense ... as One who provides nourishment in some way ?
Alright. Time to go. Y'all have a good weekend.
SD
Actually, that's backwards. The argument is that bread is really Jesus. That what appears to us as bread is really His Body. And that when we eat this bread, it is spiritual nourishment.
SD
IOWs its getting too hot in here for me today! BigMack
JESUS commissioned and ordained the Apostles ministry.
Yes, and they went out and ordained other bishops, who shared in their authority. Remember Titus, Paul instructs him to act with all authority.
Yes, Paul granted to Titus all of the authority necessary for his calling (that of a Bishop ... or overseer of a church, I believe).
That didn't make Titus an Apostle, nor is he ever referred to as an Apostle.
All of those who are called Apostles in the Bible were witnesses to the resurrected Christ.
A pretty substantial leap.
Yes, but necessary to explain new dogma.
Are you, therefore, arguing that JESUS is really bread ?
Actually, that's backwards. The argument is that bread is really Jesus. That what appears to us as bread is really His Body. And that when we eat this bread, it is spiritual nourishment.
But JESUS said ...I am the Bread of Life.... as opposed to (your interpretation) ...This bread is ME.
I don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry to jump in, here. And maybe this has already been said, but your argument holds only if we take these two verses in isolation. What differentiates John 6, v. 53,55 from John 10: 7,9, is the Last Supper. You know the words, "On the night He was betayed He took bread, breaking the bread and blessing it He said, "Take this all of you and eat it, it is my Body which will be given up for you...." or words to that effect. Now, if on the night He was betrayed He would have stood, crossed to the door in the room, blessed it and said, "Take this all of you, and open it, this is my Body which will be given up for you..." well, then, Mass would look completely different, now wouldn't it? -) Also, it is in the breaking of the bread that the two from Emmaus recognize Him, they don't recognize Him when He passes through their door.
Finally, I think I would take issue with you when you state the structure of the two scriptures you qouted is identical. I don't know if I can put this into words, but I'll try. It seems to me the scripture you qoute from John 10 is a basic assertion by Jesus of just who He is. I don't imagine any Christian would disagree with it. For us, (though not you, I understand) Jesus is the door through which we must pass to enter heaven. In essence, in this passage Jesus tells us to get to heaven we must go through Him.
The verse you qoute from John 6, however, gives us the "how to." It tells us what we must do to pass through Him -we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. And then, at the Last Supper, He gives us bread and wine and tells us, "This is My Body...This is My Blood."
Thus, there is a subtle difference between the two scriptures in purpose. The first (which actually comes later) tells us who He is, while the second tells us how we are to come to Him.
So who came up with the idea we had to inherit the "original sin" from Adam in order to be sinful?
If Adam and Eve had somehow remained perfect until they had their children, are you saying the children would have been born sinless and unable to sin?
Then is righteousness and sinlessness, passed on through the parents seed?
1 Cor 15:47-49. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Eve was human and she sinned, Adam was human and he sinned, and if it had been anyone except Christ, they would have also sinned.
The human nature is passed on from parent to child, not some mysterious microscopic sin cell that Adam created.
In fact, they committed the Original Sin.
Original as in the first sin, because of his being the first with the opportunity.
So what does that tell us? Does it tell us that someone has to have inherited sin in order to be capable of committing sin? No, it doesn't. Not at all. Try again.
No, it tells us that human flesh is weak, and will take care of it's own best interest, until God completes us by giving us His Spirit.
JH :-)
I try and pay attention to all of them. Not just John 6.
Why not start with the ones he just repeated four, five, six times? "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"
I've already started. He can repeated a hundred times and I'm still gonna take them for what He really meant. Context my son.
v63 is not the equivalent of Jesus shouting "opposite!" like a fourth grader. It makes Jesus a liar. "This is my Body" is not at all the same as "this is kinda sorta like my Body"
I wouldn't call Him a liar if I were you. He meant what he said.
Yup. Only rectangular objects may be saved. :-)
See, this what I don't understand. I agree shw was special and blessed, but when you start talking about praying thru her, distributing grace, and being imortal (ascending instead of dieing) this troubles me. I see those charteristics as god-like.
. We have already established that this was not my intent, but say it had have been. What's the difference in me limiting God in how he does miracles by saying the above vs you limiting him by saying he had to make Jesus' physical body from Mary's? To me, since He did not tell us, to insist on either one is wrong.
Is this why you accept everything they tell you? You think they are Christ?
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.