View Full Version : RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
…For the Son of God became man so that we might become God…
Vlad's post of 12/27/09. Under the Thread "RCC Indulgences", Principle 3, 9th paragraph down, it states: As Greg Krehbiel, a Protestant who has written for This Rock, points out in a privately circulated paper, the idea that all temporal penalties vanish when one is forgiven "is the error at the heart of the 'health and wealth gospel,' vis., 'Jesus took my poverty and sickness away, so I should be well and rich.'"
I think it is interesting that the 'health and wealthers' are in agreement with the RCC Catechism. They too believe that they will become God. The LDS believe this too.
So Vlad, as the RCC catechsim states, do you expect to become God?
:eek:
vladimir998
12-29-2009, 09:24 PM
As usual, an anti-Catholic, in this case RGS, stoops to quoteing out of context:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
…For the Son of God became man so that we might become God…:
That, of course, is NOT what the p***age actually says. This is:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "]"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[/B]80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
Note that RGS was not honest enough to inform people that he was not only taking a p***age out of context but that he was posting a quote without quote marks or attribution. If you were to look at the footnote, you would see the author is "St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B."
And, of course, when properly understood, Athanasius was absolutely correct. Look at scripture:
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2 ).
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17).
"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18)
Thus, Athanasius was right, the Catechism is right, and RGS is wrong. RGS denies scripture. The Church does not.
And Athanasius certainly was not alone among early Christians. Clement of Alexandria wrote, "the Logos of God had become man so that you might learn from a man how a man may become God.'' (Prot 1.8.4)
Athanasius said the same thing in several ways:
"The Word became man so that we might be deified.'' (De inc 54.3).
"The Word became flesh in order...that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified.'' (De Decret 14)
"The Word of God...took a human body for the salvation and well-being of man, that having shared in human birth He might make man partake in the divine and spiritual nature.'' (Vita Ant 74)
"He himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified man, having become man himself.... Being God, he later became man, that instead he might deify us.'' (Orat 1.38-39)
"Being God, He [the Son] has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh.... If that He might redeem mankind, the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh.'' (Orat 3.38)
"The Son of God became man so as to deify us in Himself.'' (Ad Adelph 4)
RGS is not done spreading error, however:
"I think it is interesting that the 'health and wealthers' are in agreement with the RCC Catechism."
First of all, aren't you? Do you believe in the Trinity? If you do, then you are in agreement with Catechism. Do you believe in the Resurrection? Then you are in agreement with Catechism. Thus, your point is meaningless. It is rendered especially meaningless, however, by your own inability to actually read the posted p***age. Nowhere in the following quote does Akin or Greg Krehbiel say that the Health and Wealth Protestant sectarians agree with the Catechism on any specific point at all! Greg Krehbiel is actually CRITICIZING tyour Health and Wealth heretics for NOT BELIEVING what Catholics believe. If you don't believe me, look at what you posted again:
"Vlad's post of 12/27/09. Under the Thread "RCC Indulgences", Principle 3, 9th paragraph down, it states: As Greg Krehbiel, a Protestant who has written for This Rock, points out in a privately circulated paper, the idea that all temporal penalties vanish when one is forgiven "is the error at the heart of the 'health and wealth gospel,' vis., 'Jesus took my poverty and sickness away, so I should be well and rich.'"
Greg Krehbiel is attacking what THEY BELIEVE. He is NOT saying they believe what the Catechism teaches.
So Vlad, as the RCC catechsim states, do you expect to become God?
:eek:
No, I expect exactly what was always taught in Scripture and the Fathers as it is properly understood - you know, by people who can actually read a p***age rather than get it completely wrong like you just did.
Nothing was quoted out of context. You're not a god yet (and never will be), and just because you say it doesn't make it true. There's no need to quote that part of a text that is irrelevant to the discussion. It is irrelevant that Athanasius (and he is not a saint) was quoted. What is relevant is that the RCC teaches the same heresy that Athanasius taught. The three Scriptures quoted here do not teach that a man will become God. God has already spoken on this issue in numerous places, one of which is Isaiah 43:10 ..."before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Conclusion is that the RCC is wrong, as are the health & wealthers, as is Athanasius, as is the LDS, as is Vlad. Men will not become God. Isaiah 48:11 ..."I will not give my glory unto another."
And thank you for quoting Athanasius, but why would anyone be interested in the ramblings of a heretic?
author is "St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B."
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2 ).
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17).
"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18)
vladimir998
12-30-2009, 06:57 AM
RGS,
You wrote:
Nothing was quoted out of context.
Yes, it was.
You're not a god yet (and never will be), and just because you say it doesn't make it true.
1) What I say is much more likely to be true than what you say. That is for two reasons: 1) anti-Catholics are more likely to post falsehoods if it advances their cause, and 2) anti-Catholics are less likely to get things right because they care little about the truth.
There's no need to quote that part of a text that is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is relevant. After all the rest of the context of that section and the other quotes from St. Athanasius show what he meant - and what he meant is NOT what you claim.
It is irrelevant that Athanasius (and he is not a saint) was quoted.
1) It is VERY relevant that he was quoted. If he wasn't quoted then the quote would not have appeared at all.
2) He is a saint. He is perfected. You're not.
What is relevant is that the RCC teaches the same heresy that Athanasius taught.
There was no heresy. There was only your dishonest attempt to twist what Athanasius clearly meant according to the context of his writings.
The three Scriptures quoted here do not teach that a man will become God.
Neither did Athanasius - when you read what he wrote in the proper context.
God has already spoken on this issue in numerous places, one of which is Isaiah 43:10 ..."before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
And that has nothing to do with what we're talking about since St. Athanasius wasn't claiming what you falsely claim he did.
Conclusion is that the RCC is wrong, as are the health & wealthers, as is Athanasius, as is the LDS, as is Vlad. Men will not become God. Isaiah 48:11 ..."I will not give my glory unto another."
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Your conclusion is meaningless. 1) You're objectively wrong as every scholar - including every Protestant scholar of any repute - knows. They know what St. Athanasius meant. 2) Anti-Catholics, who routinely post falsehoods and make ridiculous errors, are in no position to conclude anything about the Catholic Church.
And thank you for quoting Athanasius, but why would anyone be interested in the ramblings of a heretic?
Maybe that's why so few people take note of your posts?
Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from. If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what? The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god. Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such? Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not what I meant, have no leg to stand upon. Duh, let's see, how does the jingle go: I know you believe you understood what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. RCC double talk.
But, Vlad, this brings up a very interesting comparison. You claim I am taking these plain statements out of context, therefore, these statements do not mean what they plainly say. If this is so, then why do you take two statements out of context and claim they mean exacting what they say in the physical, when in context they do not mean a eucharist at all? Namely John 6:55-56
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
tealblue
12-30-2009, 09:09 PM
John 10:34
15 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
35
If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,
Scripture says you are gods but we all know thats not what it sounds like its saying. Same with the catechism. Why can't you just accept thats not what catholics teach? There is no record of that even being taught.
vladimir998
12-30-2009, 09:58 PM
Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from.
You're contradicting yourself. First, you said it mattered it was in the CCC, but now you say it doesn't matter where it came from. Where it came from determines its context and resolves the false issue you're making. Where it comes from means EVERYTHING.
If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what?
That's an irrational statement. If Elvis, a Protestant with an enormous ego who was lauded as if he were a god, said this we would probably have reason to take it LITERALLY as he said it. He would know he was insane or ******, but we could take him literally. But a saint, who stoutly defended the doctrine of the Trinity his whole life, no, we would know better than to make the mistake you did. Context and origins matter.
If you were to say, "I believe the Bible is inspired" I would know that means a different thing from me saying, "I believe the Bible is inspired." We both believe it is inspired, but I believe that includes the Book of Judith and you don't. Context and origins matter. What you're doing now is what anti-Catholics do so often: They often make a claim, and when that claim is soundly destroyed, they start claiming that nothing really matters except the claim itself. The merits of the claim don't matter. The logic of the claim suddenly doesn't matter. The proof for the claim doesn't matter. Only the claim - no matter how *****ic it is - matters to the anti-Catholic.
The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Where are the quote marks? Seriously, why do you post it without the quote marks? Can't you even be honest with what you post? This is actually how it reads:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god.
Nope. Only an anti-Catholic would say that's what the p***age actually means. That's why this statement comes first: "The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79"
The Church sees the later two statements THROUGH the first one and knows the context of all the statements in the paragraph. You clearly either do not know the context or just don't care to admit it because it would destroy your anti-Catholic fantasy.
Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such?
Because it was written for intelligent, educated men who would know the context of the p***ages. How do I know? Read the preface! John Paul II wrote: "This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and ***ist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine."
Thus, it was expected that the CCC would be used to formulate regional catechisms so the CCC is more like a content resource that is supposed to be used by already educated and catechized people as a resource. Although it can be used in ecumenical efforts, that too implies dealing with educated people of other faiths. What it does not imply is that the CCC is to be taken out of context or taken hyper-literally by anti-Catholics who are often poorly educated and poorly read when the early Church Fathers are quoted. And that's what happened here in this thread.
Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not wha I meant, have no leg to stand upon.
Those who quote an early Church father out of context don't even have a stump to stand on.
Duh, let's see, how does the jingle go: I know you believe you understood what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. RCC double talk.
Nope. Just the usual anti-Catholic failure to know what he was talking about. As I already showed with multiple quotes from St. Athanasius, you clearly do not understand him. And most likely you don't WANT to understand him.
But, Vlad, this brings up a very interesting comparison. You claim I am taking these plain statements out of context, therefore, these statements do not mean what they plainly say. If this is so, then why do you take two statements out of context and claim they mean exacting what they say in the physical, when in context they do not mean a eucharist at all? Namely John 6:55-56.
Because I actually know what I am talking about. Your problem is that you don't. Anyone who has ever studied the Early Church Fathers knows what St. Athanasius meant because he talked about it a number of times. We all know that St. Athanasius believed in EXACTLY ONE GOD - the Trinity. Thus, there's no way he believed in a literal deification of men so that they actually became gods like God. Such a thing was impossible according to St. Athanasius' belief system. Yet any well catechized Catholic or Orthodox instantly knows what he meant. St. Athanasius mean that we become - through the power of God in Heaven - purified and glorified beings. So pure and so glorified compared to our old earth bound selves that we would appear like gods to people here now. See 2 Peter 1:4-11 if you don't believe me.
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
Christ meant it literally. And people knew it and they left Him. And He let them go.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sacrifice.html
So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?
John 10:34
15 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
35
If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,
Scripture says you are gods but we all know thats not what it sounds like its saying. Same with the catechism. Why can't you just accept thats not what catholics teach? There is no record of that even being taught.
Thanks Vlad for pointing out the confusion of RCC teaching as only you can: "Because it was written for intelligent, educated men who would know the context of the p***ages. How do I know? Read the preface! John Paul II wrote: "This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and ***ist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine." In other words, the RCC can teach contradictory things from multiple authorities any time and any place it wants to. In fact, truth changes when it is convenient to change. The Scriptures however, do not change, and can be relied upon.
By the way, when you attempt to critique by referring to "intelligent, educated" men, it doesn't speak well of someone like you that thinks Elvis is a center of discussion. It's obvious that you have some issues that can't be solved here, and grasping valid thoughts and expressions from written materials is also obviously a challenge that you have not grasped. But of course you do understand, your purpose it to avoid valid discussions by infusing constant confusion.
vladimir998
12-31-2009, 06:33 AM
So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?
Because they are proof of the first quote in the CCC paragraph. We share in God's divine nature. He shares Himself with us as a gift.
vladimir998
12-31-2009, 06:47 AM
Thanks Vlad for pointing out the confusion of RCC teaching as only you can:
You're the one confused. You're also the one who doesn't understand what you're talking about. YOU.
In other words, the RCC can teach contradictory things from multiple authorities any time and any place it wants to.
Nope. It means you are simply not intelligent of knowledgeable enough to understand - which is clear from your repeated posts in which you demonstrate that you have no idea of what you're talking about. You don't care about the context of the quotes. You don't care about what they mean. And you failed terribly to prove they meant differently than what the context showed they meant.
In fact, truth changes when it is convenient to change. The Scriptures however, do not change, and can be relied upon.
Nope. The truth doesn't change - just as the truth of St. Athanasius' quote never changed and only poorly educated and poorly catechized people misunderstand him.
By the way, when you attempt to critique by referring to "intelligent, educated" men, it doesn't speak well of someone like you that thinks Elvis is a center of discussion.
Uh, RGS, YOU brought up Elvis. Not me. The fact that you brought him up in a discussion of "intelligent, educated" men speaks volumes about how you think.
It's obvious that you have some issues that can't be solved here,
No, what's obvious here is that you lost this debate after the first response posts from me. You had no idea about what you were posting. you compounded that problem after that.
and grasping valid thoughts and expressions from written materials is also obviously a challenge that you have not grasped.
That's hilarious coming from you since you're the only one at fault here in understanding written documents! Notice I also posted evidence (I was the only one who did so) that proved the original context and meaning of St. Athanasius' statement. And everyone lurking here knows it too. The only ones who would disagree are other anti-Catholics.
But of course you do understand, your purpose it to avoid valid discussions by infusing constant confusion.
Since I am the only one who posted other quotes from St. Athanasius which proved you wrong and other quotes from the Fathers, from scripture, and so one which explain the quote in question, I clearly am the only one here making any attempt as a 'valid discussion'. Run away, RGS. Everyone here know you lost this argument. You're just desperate to get out of the thread. Everybody know that too.
tealblue
12-31-2009, 08:08 PM
So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?
What if someone reads the bible and says that according to john 10 that we are gods then how do you respond? Because if you read it sounds like Jesus is saying we are Gods. There are alot of what looks like contradictions in scripture but we explanations for them. So how come you can't accept the explanation thats given to you? I mean the Nicene creed is clear about being one God.
What if someone reads the bible and says that according to john 10 that we are gods then how do you respond? Because if you read it sounds like Jesus is saying we are Gods. There are alot of what looks like contradictions in scripture but we explanations for them. So how come you can't accept the explanation thats given to you? I mean the Nicene creed is clear about being one God.
:)
John 10:34-38 is a rebuke to the Jews that were preparing to murder Christ right there on the spot. The first part of the rebuke is that they did not understand the Scriptures, because even though it is written "Ye are gods," if one reads the Scripture in its original context (Psalms 82) it is clear that those "gods" were merely men. These men were unable to respond to what Christ said, because they did not have the knowledge to respond with the proper response, they only had murder in their hearts and wanted to kill God. The second part of the rebuke is that these Jews did not recognize Him or believe in Him, even with all the miracles He had performed. The Kingdom of God had come to them and they did not know it and had no excuse for not knowing.
The Scriptures are clear about there being only one God. The Nicene Creed breaks down when it speaks about the "apostolic Church". The word "Church" means one thing to an RC, but it means something entirely different to a Christian. The Nicene Creed teaches one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but the Bible does not teaches that baptism can forgive sins. The RCC catechism is not clear. I will defend the Scriptures, but it is not my *** to defend the Nicene Creed nor the catechism nor any organization that may or may not call itself a church. If the catechism were true to the Scriptures I would not have a problem with it. Surely you must frequently see the contradictions in the RCC, why is that not disturbing to you? God is not the author of confusion. The RCC is the author of confusion.
Uh, RGS, YOU brought up Elvis. Not me. The fact that you brought him up in a discussion of "intelligent, educated" men speaks volumes about how you think.
No Vlad, you are the one who introduced Elvis into the conversation, not me. I injected a pseudonym. I could have used Superman, Donald Duck, John Paul, or George Washington, etc. I chose to use the name of Elvis. A reasonable person can clearly see that. You are the one who introduced the person and personality of Elvis - as if that had some relevance to the discussion - not me.
vladimir998
12-31-2009, 10:42 PM
RGS,
You wrote:
No Vlad, you are the one who introduced Elvis into the conversation, not me.
Nope. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST. You posted this in number 5:
"If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what?"
I injected a pseudonym.
No. A pseudonym is an alias, a fic***ious name created to hide someone's iden***y. Who's iden***y were you protecting by saying 'Elvis' instead? Your excuse is pathetic. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
I could have used Superman, Donald Duck, John Paul, or George Washington, etc. I chose to use the name of Elvis.
Right. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
A reasonable person can clearly see that.
I, and everyone else here, clearly sees that YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
You are the one who introduced the person and personality of Elvis - as if that had some relevance to the discussion - not me.
Nope. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Your excuses are lame. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Don't deny it. Be honest instead. Try.
Vlad still thinks that this thread is about Elvis.:eek:
vladimir998
01-01-2010, 02:58 AM
Vlad still thinks that this thread is about Elvis.:eek:
No, I think this thread - by default - has become about your errors because that's all we've seen so far.
tealblue
01-01-2010, 06:05 PM
:)
John 10:34-38 is a rebuke to the Jews that were preparing to murder Christ right there on the spot. The first part of the rebuke is that they did not understand the Scriptures, because even though it is written "Ye are gods," if one reads the Scripture in its original context (Psalms 82) it is clear that those "gods" were merely men. These men were unable to respond to what Christ said, because they did not have the knowledge to respond with the proper response, they only had murder in their hearts and wanted to kill God. The second part of the rebuke is that these Jews did not recognize Him or believe in Him, even with all the miracles He had performed. The Kingdom of God had come to them and they did not know it and had no excuse for not knowing.
The Scriptures are clear about there being only one God. The Nicene Creed breaks down when it speaks about the "apostolic Church". The word "Church" means one thing to an RC, but it means something entirely different to a Christian. The Nicene Creed teaches one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but the Bible does not teaches that baptism can forgive sins. The RCC catechism is not clear. I will defend the Scriptures, but it is not my *** to defend the Nicene Creed nor the catechism nor any organization that may or may not call itself a church. If the catechism were true to the Scriptures I would not have a problem with it. Surely you must frequently see the contradictions in the RCC, why is that not disturbing to you? God is not the author of confusion. The RCC is the author of confusion.
So scripture is so clear that man has created 35000 denominations. I'm sure the Catecism is very hard to understand for you because you are not Catholic. I totally understand. The only point I was trying to make is just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there is not an explanation to why it reads the way it does. Anyway the bible does teach Baptism forgives sins because it specifically says "This baptism now saves you."
Men and their fleshly ideas about Scripture has created multiple denominations. The Scriptures are written so that those without ears to hear, cannot hear. I do not ascribe to any denomination, so I have no need to defend their existence. Bodily baptism saves no one. This is an ungodly teaching. It is a focus on fleshly actions and practises. One, of many, problems with pagan religions and many of these 35000 you speak of, is that they have no discernment to separate the physical from the spiritual. This is why the RCC is so focused on sacraments. They are taught that their physical actions will gain an advantage for them. Your switch from what you call your protestant roots to the RCC was just another physical action - it is of no value. You merely went from the frying pan to the fire. I pray that you will break the chains of all men's religions and be truly free in Christ.
I have been a Catholic. That was easy to walk away from - boring, dry, and spiritually dead. I didn't understand how dangerous the RCC was to men's souls and the world until a decade later when I met Christ. The eucharist is the centerpiece of deception. If ones buys into that horrendous lie, then they have entered into a mindtrap that is almost impossible to get free from. But Christ can deliver anyone from any situation.
I would tell you more, but it will do little good unless you are interested in truth and have fallen in love with Christ. The Christ of the Bible and of history, not the false Catholic Jesus. Trinity is an example of total falsehood. He considers it embarr***ing and beneath him to express love for not only Christ but even for his Catholic Jesus. Christ said He wished that you were either hot or cold, but the lukewarm will He spew out.
So scripture is so clear that man has created 35000 denominations. I'm sure the Catecism is very hard to understand for you because you are not Catholic. I totally understand. The only point I was trying to make is just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there is not an explanation to why it reads the way it does. Anyway the bible does teach Baptism forgives sins because it specifically says "This baptism now saves you."
tealblue
01-03-2010, 09:54 PM
Men and their fleshly ideas about Scripture has created multiple denominations. The Scriptures are written so that those without ears to hear, cannot hear. I do not ascribe to any denomination, so I have no need to defend their existence. Bodily baptism saves no one. This is an ungodly teaching. It is a focus on fleshly actions and practises. One, of many, problems with pagan religions and many of these 35000 you speak of, is that they have no discernment to separate the physical from the spiritual. This is why the RCC is so focused on sacraments. They are taught that their physical actions will gain an advantage for them. Your switch from what you call your protestant roots to the RCC was just another physical action - it is of no value. You merely went from the frying pan to the fire. I pray that you will break the chains of all men's religions and be truly free in Christ.
I have been a Catholic. That was easy to walk away from - boring, dry, and spiritually dead. I didn't understand how dangerous the RCC was to men's souls and the world until a decade later when I met Christ. The eucharist is the centerpiece of deception. If ones buys into that horrendous lie, then they have entered into a mindtrap that is almost impossible to get free from. But Christ can deliver anyone from any situation.
I would tell you more, but it will do little good unless you are interested in truth and have fallen in love with Christ. The Christ of the Bible and of history, not the false Catholic Jesus. Trinity is an example of total falsehood. He considers it embarr***ing and beneath him to express love for not only Christ but even for his Catholic Jesus. Christ said He wished that you were either hot or cold, but the lukewarm will He spew out.
Ok what about truth? Who's truth are we talking about? Every single person who picks up a bible comes up with a different conclusion about what it all means. And yes including me. Yes the bible is inerrant but not the reader. You now how many people have told me that they are right because they have the holy spirit guiding them? And then I hear that we mostly agree on the essentials. So does the holy spirit only guide on the essentials. Jesus was very specific we are to have one faith and one baptism. Jesus also commanded the apostles to preach the nations. Throughout the roman empire and the east you have the Catholic church and no one else till the 16the century.
Ok what about truth? Who's truth are we talking about? Every single person who picks up a bible comes up with a different conclusion about what it all means. And yes including me. Yes the bible is inerrant but not the reader. You now how many people have told me that they are right because they have the holy spirit guiding them? And then I hear that we mostly agree on the essentials. So does the holy spirit only guide on the essentials. Jesus was very specific we are to have one faith and one baptism. Jesus also commanded the apostles to preach the nations. Throughout the roman empire and the east you have the Catholic church and no one else till the 16the century.
Let's give it a try. Let me guide you through something that is easy to understand, and move from there into something that requires more thought and study. Please read these Scriptures from John 6 KJV:
22The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)
24When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
I think you will agree with me. These Scriptures are very easy to understand. Namely, a group of people were looking for Jesus and they found Him. If you go further back into the chapter, you will see that this group of people were the ones that Jesus did His miracles in front of the day before by multiplying loaves of bread and feeding them.
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Now there is a lot of action in verse 26. First, Jesus didn't answer their question. Because He had performed a miracle (walking on water) just to get where He was. And he pointed out to this group: "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles." So, why should He tell them the answer to their question - which involved another miracle - when they were not interested in the previous miracles they had witnessed? Jesus further said, you are only here looking for Me because you are hungry and want more free food.
I'll wait to see if you are still with me, before I proceed.
:)RGS
tealblue
01-05-2010, 11:05 PM
Let's give it a try. Let me guide you through something that is easy to understand, and move from there into something that requires more thought and study. Please read these Scriptures from John 6 KJV:
22The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)
24When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
I think you will agree with me. These Scriptures are very easy to understand. Namely, a group of people were looking for Jesus and they found Him. If you go further back into the chapter, you will see that this group of people were the ones that Jesus did His miracles in front of the day before by multiplying loaves of bread and feeding them.
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Now there is a lot of action in verse 26. First, Jesus didn't answer their question. Because He had performed a miracle (walking on water) just to get where He was. And he pointed out to this group: "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles." So, why should He tell them the answer to their question - which involved another miracle - when they were not interested in the previous miracles they had witnessed? Jesus further said, you are only here looking for Me because you are hungry and want more free food.
I'll wait to see if you are still with me, before I proceed.
:)RGS
I'm perfectly with you on this one. Jesus didn't answer them basicaly because they were seeking only physical food to physicaly eat and were not interested in miracles.
I think I know where you are going with this but I will let you continue.
I'm perfectly with you on this one. Jesus didn't answer them basicaly because they were seeking only physical food to physicaly eat and were not interested in miracles.
I think I know where you are going with this but I will let you continue.
Thanks for sticking with this for now. I'm in no hurry to get anywhere though. It's the trip to get there that brings out so much good oil. The happy face at the end of verse 23 was not my doing. A happy face is a colon with an end parenthesis. That is what was at the end of verse 23, and the program on this site converted that to a happy face.
Next is verse 27.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
In verse 26, having refused to answer their question, Jesus then chastised them for not desiring to know Him because of His miracles. Now in verse 27, He gives them some sound advice. In other words, don't come to Me to gain food (bread and fish in this case) that will perish. What you really need is food that will endure to eternal life. Well, there is no physical food that will endure to eternal life, so He must be speaking of something spiritual. Since He is making the ****ogy of meat/food with something spiritual, then He is describing something spiritual that is consumed. Since it is not physical food that is consumed, but spiritual food, then it cannot be consumed in the stomach. It is consumed in your mind, soul, and spirit after entering through your ears or eyes (if one reads it). Then He goes onto explaining where this spiritual food will come from. After all, they haven't a clue where to get spiritual food. Physical food they can grow or hunt, but where do they get spiritual food? He tells them that the Son of man can give spiritual food to them. Then He tells them the qualifications that the Son of man has: "for Him hath God the Father sealed." Those qualifications are that the Son of man is chosen and sealed already; He has a mark of approval; He has a mark of authority; He has a mark of righteousness. One could go much further with all the meanings of this sealing: for example, if He is sealed by God the Father then He is also sealed by the Holy Spirit. God's seal cannot be broken. He is totally living under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Now He has their attention a little. But their focus is still not where it should be. This is revealed by what they say in verse 30, but we are not there yet.
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Now for their question in verse 28, Jesus gave them the answer they needed in verse 29.
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Now verse 30 reveals all kinds of things going on. First, they do confirm that they understood that when He said, "believe on him whom he hath sent" and when He said, "the Son of man", they understood that He was talking about Himself. Because they asked Him to prove Himself: give us a sign and show us your work?
At this point, you and I as the readers should be incredulous. What do they mean, are they so dull, why do they need a sign? Why do they need to see Him work or understand His work? Did they forget in less than one day? Don't they remember the multiplied loaves and fish? It's like, duh? Where were they when all of those miracles were going on? Were they napping, and their wife woke them up with a lap full of bread and fish, and they missed the whole miracle? One would not think so. They were obviously spiritually blinded. They did not have hears to hear nor eyes to see. These same people could read these same Scriptures right here and now and would not understand them any more now, than they did then. God can and does give spiritual blindness to those that refuse the truth. And He does this when He wants to bring judgment on someone.
I'll continue on after you let me know that you're still with me up to this point. If you have any questions, let me know. But, please, let's not jump ahead. There is too much to savor in the journey, we don't want to miss any of it.
RGS
tealblue
01-06-2010, 08:07 PM
This is basicaly where our differences start to show in verse 27. Jesus is comparing meat that fills us physically to meat that fills us spiritually. Some versions say meat and some say food. Either way the ***umption is that the word meat or food symbolizes a spiritual ONLY meaning. In our view Jesus is talking of a both physical and spiritual food. He says in verse 27 that this food is something that he will give us.(meaning he hasn't given us yet)
This is basicaly where our differences start to show in verse 27. Jesus is comparing meat that fills us physically to meat that fills us spiritually.
Agreed.
[/QUOTE] Some versions say meat and some say food.[/QUOTE]
No problem.
[/QUOTE] Either way the ***umption is that the word meat or food symbolizes a spiritual ONLY meaning.[/QUOTE]
How can this be an ***umption? He clearly stated, do not work for food that perishes. After making a preparatory statement like that, is He then going to turn around and offer food that perishes in place of the food that perishes? This is a total contradiction. Why would God contradict Himself?
[/QUOTE]In our view Jesus is talking of a both physical and spiritual food. He says in verse 27 that this food is something that he will give us.(meaning he hasn't given us yet)[/QUOTE]
How can you have a "view"? Taking the conversation at face value, with the information that has been given up to this point, how can you draw the conclusion that He is contradicting Himself by saying don't work for physical food, but BTW I'm going to give you physical food that I just told you not to work for? If these are the rules of conversation, then why converse? All one has to do is say two contradictory things in the same sentence and then no matter what the listener hears, you can tell him he didn't hear correctly. By definition this is not conversation nor the purpose of conversation. By definition this is called confusion. What say you?:confused:
tealblue
01-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Ok but you ***ume that the food that doesn't perish isn't a phsical food. Jesus never says that the food that he is going to give you isn't physical. He only says that the food won't perish. We both know Catholics view John 6 as Jesus's prelude to the last supper where he intritutes the Eucharist. But I want to be respectful and not jump ahead. We can still move on to verse 30 but I don't want to give this impression that I agree on something when I don't.
Ok but you ***ume that the food that doesn't perish isn't a phsical food. Jesus never says that the food that he is going to give you isn't physical. He only says that the food won't perish. We both know Catholics view John 6 as Jesus's prelude to the last supper where he intritutes the Eucharist. But I want to be respectful and not jump ahead. We can still move on to verse 30 but I don't want to give this impression that I agree on something when I don't.
Tealblue: Ok but you ***ume that the food that doesn't perish isn't a phsical food. Jesus never says that the food that he is going to give you isn't physical.
Yes, the food that doesn't perish is not a physical food. Do you know of any food that doesn't perish, any food that is not subject to the conditions of time, climate, weather, heat, cold, rain, etc.? In the context of the dialog He was drawing a comparison between food that perishes with food that does not perish. This means that He was contrasting the physical with the spiritual, metaphorically as He often did. In fact, He said it in Isaiah 55:1-2 many centuries ago.
1Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
As in John 6, the listener is being instructed that one needs water, wine, milk, bread, to feed their soul. But they spend their money on physical food and that physical food does not satisfy. It does not satisfy the soul. And it only temporarily satisfies the body. Soon the body will be hungry again and you will have to buy more food all over again and feed it. But if you feed your soul you can do it without money. After all, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).
In other words, the conversation of John 6, is not a new one. God has given us the information over and over again. And the comparison is always the same: stop worrying about your stomach and start concerning yourself with your soul.
Tealblue: But I want to be respectful and not jump ahead. We can still move on to verse 30 but I don't want to give this impression that I agree on something when I don't.
I appreciate your approach, but without a change in your understanding of verse 27 there is no reason for you to accept the remainder of what I share. I have given you many Scriptures and sound reasoning to support the fact that in verse 27 Jesus is offering spiritual food to us, not physical. What are the Scriptural references to support the RCC opinion of verse 27? I must admit, I will be amazed if you find any, because I have searched the Scriptures and I find no support for the RCC position on verse 27.
Nevertheless, I will at least move onto verse 31 since I already addressed 30.
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
This is a continuation of the mindset of the crowd. They are still not looking for spirituality or miracles. They are looking for physical food. "Hey, my daddy ate manna in the desert. If you're so great, like Moses, then prove yourself, give us bread or manna to eat." Once again, yesterday's miracles of plenty of bread to eat wasn't good enough for them. They were trying to manipulate Him into giving them more food again today. I would imagine that He did other miracles too, but they were not interested. This crowd travels on its stomach.:eek:
This is getting too long. I don't believe in taking too big a bite. It takes time to chew, before moving on.
RGS
tealblue
01-07-2010, 09:29 PM
The problem is that you are looking this in terms of only what you can understand in worldly terms. The eucharist does not perish. If you are looking at the terms of the communion wafer then ya it would eventually rot away. But jesus is not talking of the wafer itself but what the wafer becomes. You asked for a scriptural basis for this so here it goes.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
51 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. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
I highlighted a few important areas. In verse 50 he says that any man that eats it will not die. In verse 52 he then finally reveals what this bread is. HIS FLESH. In verse 53 the jews then acuse jesus of eating his very flesh. In verse 54 what does Jesus do? He repeats himself and expounds by adding "And drink my blood". Jesus continues to repeat himself over and over again. Finally in verse 56 Jesus says for my flesh IS FOOD INDEED and my blood REAL drink.
Yes you are right in that the bread jesus is talking about is a metaphore. But the metaphore is his real flesh and blood not just believing in him. Many of the diciples who heard this left for good after hearing this saying this is a hard teaching. If the bread only meant believing in him then this would be an easy thing for them to understand.
Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Jesus never says that the bread is believing in him. He says that this bread IS HIS FLESH. Why would jesus replace a metaphore for another metaphore?
Catholic have believed this for 2000 years and protestants have denied it for about 300. I'm sorry I can't come to your same conclusion but the language is clear and history is clear.
tealblue
01-07-2010, 09:41 PM
And yes I still agree with you that the people were looking for read food to eat. No denying that. But its still your asumption that the bread he is refering to is belief in him. It never syas that. He says that bread is his flesh.
Th 1/7/10
The problem is that you are looking this in terms of only what you can understand in worldly terms.
Actually, I am looking at this from a Biblical point of view, not a worldly point of view or an RCC dogma point of view. Understanding godly things does not begin and end with RCC dogma.
The eucharist does not perish.
I was hoping you would wait, but you did not. We haven't begun talking about a eucharist yet, because in the Scriptures we have looked at so far a eucharist has not come up as a topic. Up through verse 31 where is a eucharist discussed or brought up as a topic either by Christ or the crowd? The answer, it has not been brought up. So, why are you jumping ahead?
If you are looking at the terms of the communion wafer then ya it would eventually rot away. But jesus is not talking of the wafer itself but what the wafer becomes.
Once again, the subject of a wafer has not been brought up yet. So, I'm not concerned with its ability to rot. Christ has been talking about food thus far, not communion, or eucharist, or wafers.
You asked for a scriptural basis for this so here it goes.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
51 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. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
I highlighted a few important areas. In verse 50 he says that any man that eats it will not die. In verse 52 he then finally reveals what this bread is. HIS FLESH. In verse 53 the jews then acuse jesus of eating his very flesh. In verse 54 what does Jesus do? He repeats himself and expounds by adding "And drink my blood". Jesus continues to repeat himself over and over again. Finally in verse 56 Jesus says for my flesh IS FOOD INDEED and my blood REAL drink.
Yes you are right in that the bread jesus is talking about is a metaphore. But the metaphore is his real flesh and blood not just believing in him. Many of the diciples who heard this left for good after hearing this saying this is a hard teaching. If the bread only meant believing in him then this would be an easy thing for them to understand.
Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Jesus never says that the bread is believing in him. He says that this bread IS HIS FLESH. Why would jesus replace a metaphore for another metaphore?
Catholic have believed this for 2000 years and protestants have denied it for about 300. I'm sorry I can't come to your same conclusion but the language is clear and history is clear.
Christ is laying down a very important teaching and doctrine. It must be digested and sorted out linearly. You are using circular reasoning. You have ***umed that his teaching is going in a certain direction, without exploring where it is really going, and then you draw conclusions taken out of context and out of order with His teaching. I know you haven't done this on your own. You have merely brought forth the standard RCC dogma. I thought you wanted to know how to understand the Scriptures, when so many have so many different interpretations. That is where we started.
BTW, the exegesis you've given here does not support your view of verse 27, because the info you've given is not what is being taught. I will attempt to continue with what is being taught, verse by verse, if you will permit it.
32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
In verse 32, Christ corrects the crowd again. They are claiming that Moses gave them "that bread" (meaning manna) from heaven and He tells them that Moses did not give them bread from heaven.
Christ continues and states that His Father gives "the true bread" (meaning Christ) from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Now Christ clearly identifies Himself as the "bread of God" which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. But the crowd doesn't hear him, because they do not have ears to hear. They are still looking for physical bread to eat and fill their stomachs with.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
The crowd thinks that this is some type of super energized bread, that will keep their physical bodies forever nourished and their stomachs forever satisfied. They had no clue that Christ was talking about spiritual bread.
But its still your asumption that the bread he is refering to is belief in him. It never syas that.
Actually, it does say that in verse 29 (and He reinforces it in subsequent verses that we have not reached yet). But Christ often spoke in parables. Do I need to quote the Scriptures that He states that and the reason for it? And, predictably, the crowd did not understand what He said. That's why they continued to press Him for bread to fill their stomachs with.
tealblue
01-08-2010, 10:53 PM
Yes it is true that I have been shown the meaning of the bread of life discourse. And I think thats true for everybody also when reading the bible. That in it self doesn't make it true or false. You had made the statement that verse 29 says that belief in him is the bread of life. In verse 29 it only says that" it is the work of God to belive in him." How do you come up with that verse to mean believing is the bread of life when Verse 52 is clear what the bread of life is. His flesh.
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.
We both pretty much agree that the people were looking for food to fill their stomachs. And I think we pretty much agree that the bread of life is Jesus. BUT I think the real difference we have in this whole discourse is "What does jesus mean when he says EAT" I already agreed that the bread is a metaphore. I shown clear p***age in verse 52 that the bread is a metaphore for his flesh.
How do you know from this chapter that when Jesus says eat my flesh, drink my blood that it is not literal. The jews were very clear that they thought he was being literal. And Jesus was very clear to repeat himself over and over again. Even changing the word eat in verse 57 to trogon which means to chew or knaw. These words eat my flesh and drink my blood are the same language used in the last supper where Jesus broke bread and raised up the cup and says this is my body and blood.
Yes jesus often spoke in parrables. Jesus didn't always speak in parables. And the crowd didn't always misunderstand what he was saying for instance when he says the word I AM. They all knew exactly what he was saying.
tealblue
01-08-2010, 11:00 PM
Hey on a side note in verse 32 are you saying that moses didn't give them manna and it was actually something else because verse 31 is clear that moses did give them manna and they ate it. Jesus is only saying that the manna didn't come from heaven like the bread that he soon will.
And on another note I apologise for jumping ahead but you kind of challenged me that I had no scripture support for why the food jesus was giving us is a phsical food. You are expecting me to change my exegesis of verse 27.You keep telling me that the food can't be physical just because he says this food won't perish or spoil. The fact is verse 27 doesn't tell us at all at this point what this food is. He never says this food is spiritual either. The only thing he says is that this food won't spoil. Thats it.
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.
Show me where in this verse where it says that the food(meat) is spiritual and not physical. How am I supposed to see your view of something that it doesn't say. Its fine if you say ok we will get to that part.
Hey on a side note in verse 32 are you saying that moses didn't give them manna and it was actually something else because verse 31 is clear that moses did give them manna and they ate it. Jesus is only saying that the manna didn't come from heaven like the bread that he soon will.
I'll get to your previous post, probably tomorrow. But this is a short answer. Moses didn't give them "the bread from heaven". The words "from heaven" need to be included. But in actuality, Moses didn't give them the manna either. God provided the manna. Moses merely told the people about what God was going to provide.
Yes it is true that I have been shown the meaning of the bread of life discourse. And I think thats true for everybody also when reading the bible.
Your "everybody" leaves out a lot of people.
That in it self doesn't make it true or false.
I agree.
You had made the statement that verse 29 says that belief in him is the bread of life.
Tealblue quote: "But its still your asumption that the bread he is refering to is belief in him."
RGS reply: "Actually, it does say that in verse 29."
Your statement of "belief in him is the bread of life" is not what I was saying when I replied to your original statement. In verse 27, Christ said "Labour…for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you…". Christ was talking here about "meat" that He had to offer to the crowd. That "meat" was His teachings and belief in Him. In verse 29 He reinforces His verse 27 statement by saying, "believe on him (the Son) whom he (the Father) hath sent."
This belief in Him is of extreme importance (believing that He is God and all that entails) and this crowd was not doing that. They were treating Him like He was another Moses. Christ was bringing the conversation to a point of recognizing Who He was, and pointing out at the same time that the crowd was not at that point of belief.
In verse 29 it only says that" it is the work of God to belive in him." How do you come up with that verse to mean believing is the bread of life when Verse 52 is clear what the bread of life is. His flesh.
Yes, it is the work of God for them to believe on Christ. This was a ministry of all the prophets, the Scriptures, and the teachings of Christ. All of this is God at work among men. And I've already pointed out immediately above that I did not say "believing is the bread of life". And since I haven't reached verse 52, I'll address that when I get there.
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.
We both pretty much agree that the people were looking for food to fill their stomachs. And I think we pretty much agree that the bread of life is Jesus. BUT I think the real difference we have in this whole discourse is "What does jesus mean when he says EAT" I already agreed that the bread is a metaphore. I shown clear p***age in verse 52 that the bread is a metaphore for his flesh.
How do you know from this chapter that when Jesus says eat my flesh, drink my blood that it is not literal.
By what He has said thus far; i.e., up through verse 34, which is all the further I have addressed at this point. Also, by taking a linear approach, with no preconceived ideas or notions about what He is teaching. I am taking it one step at a time, and thus far He is not teaching about communion, eucharist, or wafers. Nor is He teaching that is physical flesh is to be eaten. When and if that changes in this discourse, I will point it out.
The jews were very clear that they thought he was being literal. And Jesus was very clear to repeat himself over and over again. Even changing the word eat in verse 57 to trogon which means to chew or knaw. These words eat my flesh and drink my blood are the same language used in the last supper where Jesus broke bread and raised up the cup and says this is my body and blood.
I will be glad to discuss verse 57 and trogon when I get to verse 57. And, as far as the Last Supper goes, that hasn't happened yet, so no one that He is talking to knows anything about communion, eucharist, wafers, etc. This is very important to keep in mind. No one knew anything at all about these doctrines. It's best to pretend that you don't either. Take it as it comes, otherwise, as is happening now, you are drawing conclusions with information that has not been given yet. Please, don't be a seer, learn it in the chronological order that it was given. Christ builds upon His teachings, and He will in John 6 also. That's why I referred to the Old Testament, Isaiah 55:1-2. This information was available to those who had been read and preached to, and one can use this information to help understand the current teaching.
Yes jesus often spoke in parrables. Jesus didn't always speak in parables. And the crowd didn't always misunderstand what he was saying for instance when he says the word I AM. They all knew exactly what he was saying.
Continuing on with verse 35.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
The crowd wanted evermore bread to physcially eat. Christ gave a better answer. He plainly said that He was the bread of life. He said "come" to me and never hunger, "believe" on me and never thirst. With what He has spoken up to this point (and realizing that the Last Supper has not yet occurred) one cannot possibly think that He is talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He very plainly said "come" and "believe". Coming and believing are a far cry from cannabalism.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
These people had seen miraculous signs and wonders. People they had known their wholes lives were healed of visible maladies right before their very eyes. They had seen five thousand fed with five loaves of bread and two fish. Yet, they did not believe in Him. The stubbornness and unbelief of some boggles the mind. And Christ makes the comparison again between Himself and bread. He even calls Himself the Bread of Life. He is saying that the bread that fills your stomach only gives you life here and now. The Bread of Life, that is, Christ, gives you life forever. Christ is not saying He is a piece of bread of higher quality which will go into your stomach and sustain your physical body forever. Rather, He is comparing bread made by human hands to be consumed for food, with Himself, the Bread of Life, that must be consumed in your spirit for eternal life.
In verses 37-40, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
They have just been told that He holds the keys to eternal life, because He can raise them up on the last day. Please, people, listen to Him.
But, incredibly, they do not listen, just as people do not listen today. They actually start complaining in verses 41-42:
At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
More than enough for one entry.
M 1/11/10
Tealblue,
As you can see, without going into the future, from the point in time that Christ was teaching the crowd in John 6 (up through verse 42 only at this point), there is absolutely nothing that He has taught that speaks of communion, or eucharist, or wafers. Therefore, nothing He has said up to this point can be explained in those terms. But the Biblical exegesis I have given, does explain His teachings up to this point.
In verses 43-48, “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.” He says it again. He says, “I am the bread of life.” Also, He just told them again the key to eternal life, “he who believes has everlasting life.” Once again, Christ saying that He is the Bread of Life is in no way related to communion, eucharist, or the taking of wafer, or the drinking of wine. It isn't there. When one doesn't have the Last Supper to draw upon, then you do not have any support for John 6, up through verse 48, to mean anything other than what Christ has stated and what I have stated. You must believe in God to have eternal life. Participating in a communion memorial or participating in a eucharist ceremony is not even in the picture up through verse 48.
Verse 49: "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." Once again, Christ is stressing the same point over and over. Manna, will not sustain one's life forever. It is only physcial food for the stomach. We need spiritual food. What is that spiritual food? He immediately tells us, yet again (over and over), in the next verse, that it is belief in Him (Christ) and His teachings that are spiritual food.
Verse 50: "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." This is the bread (Christ Himself and His teachings) which cometh down from heaven (He was in heaven aforetime and has now come down to Earth to us), that a man may eat thereof (not even a hint of cannabalism, it is crystal clear that He is speaking of believing in Him and His teachings) and not die. And not die. He has reforced His teaching over and over again, eat physical food (and this would include cannabalism) and you die. But believing in Christ and His teachings can give you eternal life.
Please tell me, Tealblue, what in John 6 up through verse 50 says anything at all about communion or a eucharist? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
tealblue
01-11-2010, 08:46 PM
Ok I'm getting a little ahead of myself so I'll try not to get ahead. Getting back to verse 27-30.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
I feel we have a double standard here. Its ok for you to say Jesus says nothing of communion wafers or anything but its ok for you to make this leap and say the bread is spiritual because for no other reason than he says this bread is unperishable. Unperishable doesn't mean spiritual. It only means unperishable Verse 29 only answers verse 28. They do not ask what is the bread of life in verse 28. They only ask what the work of God is. The only time jesus says what the bread of life is in verse 52. But I will wait till you get there.
tealblue
01-11-2010, 09:03 PM
M 1/11/10
Tealblue,
As you can see, without going into the future, from the point in time that Christ was teaching the crowd in John 6 (up through verse 42 only at this point), there is absolutely nothing that He has taught that speaks of communion, or eucharist, or wafers. Therefore, nothing He has said up to this point can be explained in those terms. But the Biblical exegesis I have given, does explain His teachings up to this point.
In verses 43-48, “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.” He says it again. He says, “I am the bread of life.” Also, He just told them again the key to eternal life, “he who believes has everlasting life.” Once again, Christ saying that He is the Bread of Life is in no way related to communion, eucharist, or the taking of wafer, or the drinking of wine. It isn't there. When one doesn't have the Last Supper to draw upon, then you do not have any support for John 6, up through verse 48, to mean anything other than what Christ has stated and what I have stated. You must believe in God to have eternal life. Participating in a communion memorial or participating in a eucharist ceremony is not even in the picture up through verse 48.
Verse 49: "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." Once again, Christ is stressing the same point over and over. Manna, will not sustain one's life forever. It is only physcial food for the stomach. We need spiritual food. What is that spiritual food? He immediately tells us, yet again (over and over), in the next verse, that it is belief in Him (Christ) and His teachings that are spiritual food.
Verse 50: "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." This is the bread (Christ Himself and His teachings) which cometh down from heaven (He was in heaven aforetime and has now come down to Earth to us), that a man may eat thereof (not even a hint of cannabalism, it is crystal clear that He is speaking of believing in Him and His teachings) and not die. And not die. He has reforced His teaching over and over again, eat physical food (and this would include cannabalism) and you die. But believing in Christ and His teachings can give you eternal life.
Please tell me, Tealblue, what in John 6 up through verse 50 says anything at all about communion or a eucharist? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Yes belief in God is the key to eternal life. But when Jesus makes those statements about believing in him and eternal life he is not making reference to eating bread, eating his flesh or drinkin his blood. You are also drawing a conclusion that if the manna bread God gave them AND THEY DIED was phsical that this bread must be spiritual because if the bread they ate was phsical and they died this bread now MUST BE SPIRITUAL. The text never says its spiritual you only draw the conclusion because the manna was phsical and they died. Jesus only says that this new bread if you eat it you will not die. Nothing more nothing less.
Ok I'm getting a little ahead of myself so I'll try not to get ahead. Getting back to verse 27-30.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
I feel we have a double standard here. Its ok for you to say Jesus says nothing of communion wafers or anything but its ok for you to make this leap and say the bread is spiritual because for no other reason than he says this bread is unperishable.
Actually, there is more than one reason to say verse 27 is spiritual. Reason (1): "Labour not for the meat which perisheth." Meat in Greek is brosis. Brosis is not only bread, it is any food. In verse 26 the word loaves is used and in verse 27 it is called meat/brosis. This shows us that the significance of the type of food they ate is not important. After all, they ate fish too. Reason (2): They need food/brosis that will endure to life everlasting. Once again, there is no food which can sustain one forever. So, the p***age must be talking about something other than physical food. Reason (3): Only the Son of man can give them this food that doesn't perish. Others can give them the same teachings by repeating what He has said. But the words alone cannot make them believe that the Son of man is God. This is what Christ is calling them to, to believe in Him.
So, I do not see this a any leap at all, but merely a logical progression and conclusion of what is being said to them. BTW, they did not understand what was being said to them. And, today, neither do you. Maybe tomorrow you will. They thought He was talking about super food that would not perish. In a way, this too is what you are thinking. But you are thinking the food is Him, because you have future information. They are thinking that He has food that will keep them from being hungry, or else is will keep coming and coming and they will always be filled.
Unperishable doesn't mean spiritual. It only means unperishable
Can you tell me of a food that is unperishable and yet still physical? The point is that when He says unperishable, He is not talking about food. He is merely making a comparison of food that is comsumed into the stomach, and something else that is consumed into the soul and spirit, which is belief in Him as God.
Verse 29 only answers verse 28.
In verse 27 He says, "Labour…for that…which endureth unto everlasting life." I left out meat between "that" and "which" because maybe it will make it easier to understand that He is not talking about food. Then is verse 29 He says again, "the work…[is]…believe on him." So, what is believing on Him going to benefit a person? One of the benefits is to receive eternal life. But merely believing does not do the *** all by itself, but it is a good starting point. After all, James 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
They do not ask what is the bread of life in verse 28. They only ask what the work of God is. The only time jesus says what the bread of life is in verse 52. But I will wait till you get there.
They didn't ask what the bread of life is in verse 28, because Christ had not yet identified Himself as such.
Yes belief in God is the key to eternal life. But when Jesus makes those statements about believing in him and eternal life he is not making reference to eating bread, eating his flesh or drinkin his blood. You are also drawing a conclusion that if the manna bread God gave them AND THEY DIED was phsical that this bread must be spiritual because if the bread they ate was phsical and they died this bread now MUST BE SPIRITUAL.
The meat/brosis which Christ offers, at this point in the dialogue, is not even food at all. The crowd thinks He is talking about food, that is their whole error. I don't think He is talking about food at all.
The text never says its spiritual you only draw the conclusion because the manna was phsical and they died. Jesus only says that this new bread if you eat it you will not die. Nothing more nothing less.
At this point in the dialogue, that is true. But He will say it before we are finished.
tealblue
01-12-2010, 10:06 PM
Your whole argument is based on unperishable food being spiritual based only on personal understanding. Your basing your argument on a sola scriptora basis but you are going beyond what is said. Your even speculaing on what the crown was thinking and not what they said. Yes I agree that the jews around him were confused and most likely were confused when they departed but they were confused for different reasons.
Verse 34 the jews say give us this bread. At this point I think we agree to some point that they were looking for a phsical bread to eat just to fill their stomachs.
Verse 41 They questioned him about Jesus saying he was the living bread. I think even at this point we can agree on the principal that Jesus in some way is the living bread. And I think we also agree that they questioned him about How can he come down from heaven.
Up to verse 50 I see no reason besides speculation to why the bread that he was about to give was only spiritual in nature. If you read john 6 with the idea he was talking about the eucharist it does make sense.
Your whole argument is based on unperishable food being spiritual based only on personal understanding.
I disagree. I have shown, over and over again, that this is not based on personal understanding. ****yzing what was being said, and by whom, can lead to no other conclusion than the one I have presented. If a different conclusion is reached, it is not based on the Scripture, it is based on ulterior motives - one of which is to fantasize that a eucharist is being spoken of. But one can only reach that conclusion once they have bought the RCC dogma hook, line, and sinker. And then, they must use circular reasoning. Thus far, through verse 50, there is nothing that even remotely hints at a eucharist or even communion - it just is not there! And you haven't shown where it is up through verse 50. I realize how hard it is to grapple with facts that totally contradict a deeply ingrained dogma. I have faith in Christ, in God, but I have no faith in man made doctrines and man made organizations. Men's hearts cannot be trusted. Jeremiah 17:9 KJV, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" It is better to trust the Scriptures that have been written by the Holy Ghost. 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Your basing your argument on a sola scriptora basis but you are going beyond what is said. Your even speculaing on what the crown was thinking and not what they said. Yes I agree that the jews around him were confused and most likely were confused when they departed but they were confused for different reasons.
I haven't even come close to going beyond what is written. I have supported every thing by the very words that are written. The eucharist goes way beyond what is written - it goes completely out of the ballpark (the Bible). Where did I speculate on what they crowd was thinking? They reveal their thoughts by their words, and Christ also reveals their thoughts by what He says about them.
Verse 34 the jews say give us this bread. At this point I think we agree to some point that they were looking for a phsical bread to eat just to fill their stomachs.
Verse 41 They questioned him about Jesus saying he was the living bread. I think even at this point we can agree on the principal that Jesus in some way is the living bread. And I think we also agree that they questioned him about How can he come down from heaven.
Up to verse 50 I see no reason besides speculation to why the bread that he was about to give was only spiritual in nature. If you read john 6 with the idea he was talking about the eucharist it does make sense.
The opposite is true. Reading John 6 with the idea that a eucharist is being talked about is pure lunacy. The whole idea of a eucharist is not taught anywhere in the Bible. It is a total fabrication. And John 6 is as good a place as any to expose it.
I will continue with verse 51 and more, next time. Because we are going to be entering into the verses that some think cannot be explained in any way except via RCC dogma.
tealblue
01-13-2010, 10:26 PM
Your last post you pretty much addmitted that he doesn't specify a spiritual bread up to 50, but he will. If you listen to what I'm saying I'm not even saying that Jesus specifies the eucharist either. but you do keep on asking what kind of food doesn't perish that you eat? So I answered. I'm trying not to keep bringing up the eucharist because I know that you really couldn't come up with the eucharist by john 6 alone. Atleast give me the courtacy to admit that you couldn't come up with a spiritual bread either up to verse atleast 50 Because you can't. Your only argument is what food is there that won't perish? But anyway so what if you can't come up with the eucharist by john 6 alone? You can't come up with the trinity by one chapter alone either. Anyway you can go on to verse 51 because we won't agree up to this point.
take care
tealblue
01-13-2010, 10:43 PM
I keep on hearing the same thing from protetants about how the Church's doctrines are man made and how they only go by the scriptures.Well isn't your doctrine man made also? It was a man who came up with it. Just because someone reads the bible and says hey I read the bible and this is what it says, so what. Your views are just as read into as ours. two protestants, one believes you can lose your salvation and one believes that you can. Both can't be right. Both have read into the bible and claim the holy spirit led them. One is man made and the other isn't. But which one? Obviously its the doctrine that you hold because the other is most certainly reading it with tainted eyes. Ever thought that you could be misunderstanding what jesus is really saying? Maybe not but was just a thought.
But anyway so what if you can't come up with the eucharist by john 6 alone?
take care
This is a very revealing statement by you Tealblue. You have admitted that you cannot find the doctrine of a eucharist in John 6, at least not absolutely without help from other sources. Your church would disagree with you. In one of my many conversations in person with an RC Priest, he concluded our conversation by saying, "So, you consider us idol worshippers?" I said, "Yes, but not because of the statues, because of the eucharist." (We had been discussing that very thoroughly too). And his reply, "But we don't get the doctrine of the eucharist from the Last Supper, we get it from John chapter six."
Anyway, onto to next post, which you will ignore too. We started with you saying that you wanted to know how to discern who was telling the truth about the Bible and who was not. I have been trying to show you, but thus far you have refused to shed RCC dogma long enough to take an honest look at the Scriptures (in this case, John 6).
John 6:51
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven:"
Christ identifies Himself and His meaning over and over again. Seven times from verse 27 through verse 51.
(1)He told them in verse 27, "Labour…for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." The "meat" He is talking about is Himself.
(2) In verse 29, "…believe on him whom he hath sent". In other words believe that He is God and believe His teachings because this "meat" will endure (give you, if you believe) everlasting life.
(3) In verse 32, "… my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." Now a third time He tells them that He is the "meat" or "true bread" that comes from heaven. Just because He says "meat" one time and "true bread" another time does not change His meaning. He is talking about Himself and the need to "believe" that He is the "meat" or "true bread".
(4) In verse 33 He tells them a again: "the bread of God (meaning Christ) is he (Christ) which comes from heaven."
(5) Verse 35, "I am the bread of life". He tells them again that He is the "bread of life".
(6) Verse 48, "I am that bread of life."
(7)Verse 50, "the bread which cometh down from heaven."
(8) Verse 51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven."
He has identified Himself these eight times as meat which gives eternal life; as him whom the Father has sent; as true bread from heaven; as the bread of God from heaven; as the bread of life; again as that bread of life; as the bread which comes down from heaven; and the eighth time as the living bread which came down from heaven.
After eight times there can be no mistaking that He is talking about Himself. And He calls Himself meat or bread or him, but they all come from heaven.
But there is not even a hint of teaching in here about communion or eucharist. These doctrines are not in John 6. In history, communion was not introduced prior to John 6, nor in John 6. These doctrines came later in time.
Continuing with verse 51: "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever."
How does one "eat" of this bread or meat or him. Easily enough understood from the context, you eat of Him by believing in Him as coming from heaven. Eat equals believe.
He never even used the word eat until verse 50 and now again in verse 51.
The result of believing (eating) in Him is that the way to eternal life may be available to you.
Continuing in verse 51: "and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
So, how does He give this flesh which is bread, which is meat, which is him, etc.? He preaches and teaches everyone to believe, not consume into the stomach, but to believe. But this part of the verse is more significant than this. HE IS PROPHESYING HIS OWN DEATH.
He was predicting the death of His body as an atonement for the sins of all. John 3:16 KJV, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
He is not instructing for everyone, everywhere, for all time to physically eat His flesh over and over and over. Not at all. God forbid. He is letting us know that He will do it all at the execution stake. And when He had paid the price for your sins and mine, and when He had fulfilled all the law and the prophets, He said, in John 19:30, "It is finished."
Predictably, as I've been saying continuously, the crowd did not understand Him any more now, than they have all along. They still thought, as RCC dogma teaches, that He was talking about physically eating.
Verse 52, "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
They were wrong and the RCC is wrong. Up through verse 52, no where, in no way, is there any teaching about communion or eucharist. It is not there.
Verse 53 and more later.
tealblue
01-14-2010, 08:20 PM
Yes I said that by John 6 alone we don't come up with the Eucharist. You also have to take into account what Jesus says in the last supper. Its perfectly ok to use other scripture to interpret john 6 right? The priest was probably going on the notion that john 6 more describes that the bread we consume is the flesh of our lord and saviour. The last supper more describes the phsical act of breaking bread and drinking wine. So yes he is right from a different viewpoint. Anyway back to john 6.
Yes jesus over and over again says " I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE " Ok what does Jesus mean when he says I am the bread of life. Does he mean he is spiritualy the bread of life or something else. I'm still waiting for scripture to prove that Jesus is the bread spiritualy and eat simply means to believe. Kind of like "hey chew on this idea for awhile" So far just ***umption that he is contrasting phsical food and spiritual food. Nothing in scripture proves this is the case. He plainly says for my flesh is REAL food and my blood REAL drink.
In verses 53-59, Jesus said to them,
"53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."
Christ continues to reinforce everything He has said since verse 26. He continues to make the comparison of consuming bread made by human hands as only being temporary (temporal), and referring to Himself as the bread that came down from heaven (spiritual). In verse 54, His switch from
His usage of eat/esthio to eat/trogo is of little consequence. I know that RCC dogma tries to make a big deal of trogo to have a mastigating connotation - as if that is of some import - rather than a simple chewing. Simple fact is, some lexicons of that period show that esthio and trogo are identical in meaning and one can be subs***uted for the other with no change in the meaning. In fact, most of the lexicons I researched did not even use the definition of mastigate, but rather indicated that it was the chewing function of herbivorous animals, including man.
The most important point of trogo, however, is the total contradiction and hypocrisy that it exposes in the RCC when they try to use it to support their doctrine of the false eucharist. Having been a Catholic myself in the past, I am privy to many things first hand that others are not. And it is also why I can see right through the other hypocritical rantings of the Jesuits on this site. (I am not accusing Tealblue of being a Jesuit). Catholics are taught never to chew the wafer god, do not even put your teeth to it. It would be disrespectful and repugnant to bite a god. But it is okay for them to falsely exegete a p***age and claim that Christ is teaching us to really chew out and chop down big time so that you can eat flesh. The RCC is a monster of hypocrisy! "Oh, it is a bloodless sacrifice," they will tell you. Blashphemy! Blashphemy! Christ died a torturous and bloody death as payment for your sins and mine. It was anything but a bloodless sacrifice!
In verse 60, On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"They continue in their unbelief and, therefore, are unable to understand. Just as you are not able to understand, Tealblue, you do not believe in Christ and His teachings. You believe in the RCC.
In verses 61-63, Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, [Yahoshua] said to them,
61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Christ continues, yet another time, to stress that He is speaking spiritually about eating His flesh, not physically. He stresses that eating His flesh means that you are taking Him and His teaching into your spirit so that you may receive eternal life.
There it is Tealblue. For the last time and screaming off the pages of Scripture, right in your face.
Verse 63: THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.
There it is, as plain as day. Christ is talking spiritually about Himself and His teachings, He is not teaching cannibalism. He is not even teaching communion.
Tealblue, I have started a new thread on this subject, with explanations that have not been covered in this thread.
tealblue
01-15-2010, 06:52 PM
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life
Verse 64 is not talking about the bread of life being spiritual. Its talking of christs spirit giving life and our flesh profiting nothing. he's not referencing the bread of life because if he was he would be saying that his flesh profits nothing. Jesus would never say that his flesh profits nothing and that my friend would be blasphemous. You can't just rearange words and make them say anything you want. St ignatius in 110 AD confirmed the belief that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of jesus.
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life
Verse 64 is not talking about the bread of life being spiritual. Its talking of christs spirit giving life and our flesh profiting nothing. he's not referencing the bread of life because if he was he would be saying that his flesh profits nothing. Jesus would never say that his flesh profits nothing and that my friend would be blasphemous. You can't just rearange words and make them say anything you want. St ignatius in 110 AD confirmed the belief that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of jesus.
You said these are the words of Ignatius: Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Taken from a spiritual point of view Ignatius has only said what John the Beloved reported that Christ said. Show me where Ignatius said he wanted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, whether in wafer form or in physical form.
vladimir998
01-16-2010, 09:32 AM
Taken from a spiritual point of view Ignatius has only said what John the Beloved reported that Christ said. Show me where Ignatius said he wanted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, whether in wafer form or in physical form.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.
If I were interested in doing more study of Ignatius, I would need the Greek texts that had not been handled or interpreted by RCC employees. The word Eucharist, as used by the RCC, has nothing to do with the Greek word eucharisteo/ia/os that is translated into gladness/thankfulness/thankful in the New Testament. The use of the word "Eucharist" by the RCC has taken on a new meaning from its original meaning in the Greek. If an RCC employee has made a corrupt translation of Ignatius' writings, that would be in line with their other deceptions. So, I can't take your word for what Ignatius said as your translation relates. Because in 110 AD, the RCC definition of "Eucharist" did not exist in the Greek language of that era. So, if Ignatius only had the word eucharisteo (which means gladness) available to him in the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods, how could he use it to describe the current day RCC "Eucharist"? Simple answer, he could not.
vladimir998
01-16-2010, 08:58 PM
If I were interested in doing more study of Ignatius, I would need the Greek texts that had not been handled or interpreted by RCC employees.
Uh, RGS, those same letters were translated by a Protestant. They read the same, for instance, in Cyril Richardson's translation.
CR trans:
"They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. "
What I posted:
" They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
It's almost EXACTLY the same.
How about the next quote? Well, let's see shall we?
CR's trans:
"You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. 2Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
What I posted:
"Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
It's almost EXACTLY the same.
Next one.
CR's trans.:
"Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God's will."
What I posted:
"Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God."
Almost exactly the same. Imagine that. So, a real Protestant scholar, who knew more than you ever will, effectively translated just as I posted it.
The word Eucharist, as used by the RCC, has nothing to do with the Greek word eucharisteo/ia/os that is translated into gladness/thankfulness/thankful in the New Testament. The use of the word "Eucharist" by the RCC has taken on a new meaning from its original meaning in the Greek.
Protestants - who aren't sciolists about Christianity as you are - recognize "Eucharist" in its literal Greek meaning and in it's relation to THE Eucharist.
If an RCC employee has made a corrupt translation of Ignatius' writings, that would be in line with their other deceptions. So, I can't take your word for what Ignatius said as your translation relates.
RGS, you are making the saddest excuses I have seen on the part of an anti-Catholic in quite some time. Congratulations. You have entered the realm of anti-Catholic irrelevancy. Protestants translate the relevant quotes the same way as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do.
Because in 110 AD, the RCC definition of "Eucharist" did not exist in the Greek language of that era. So, if Ignatius only had the word eucharisteo (which means gladness) available to him in the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods, how could he use it to describe the current day RCC "Eucharist"? Simple answer, he could not.
Uh, RGS, as CR makes clear, the work Eucharist already meant THE EUCHARIST when St. Ignatius was writing. You lose. How embarr***ing.
St. Justin Martyr wrote:
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155
St. Irenaeus wrote:
"[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.
"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
vladimir998
01-17-2010, 03:17 PM
As expected, RGS failed:
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted.
RGS, as an anti-Catholic, and poorly educated in all things about Christianity, is reduced to attcking me rather than dealing with what I posted. He is then dismissive about the evidence I posted because he can't refute it. This is what anti-Catholics MUST do to save face and protect their own wounded egos as they repeatedly fail to refute the evidence put before them.
It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers.
See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted, RGS is reduced to whining that the word Eucharist didn't mean THE Eucharist. This is a completely inept argument as anyone can tell since words naturally develop meanings when used in ***ociation with things. RGS, however, cannot admit this even though everyone knows it is how words organically develop.
The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Clearly it did - as I posted and as RGS has now failed (again) to refute.
tealblue
01-17-2010, 05:11 PM
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
I know alot of people who left the Catholic church for various reasons mostly because the Catholic church lacks the euphoria, senationalism and good feelings the new modern churches do.Its real easy to look at writings of the early church and say that something didn't mean what it did back then. I've read the writings and they look Catholic to me. I read them before I became Catholic and I was disurbed at what I read. I became Catholic because I had to, not because I wanted to. Basically because of acidemic honesty. Your grasping at straws at this point.
See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted,
Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you. Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.
I know alot of people who left the Catholic church for various reasons mostly because the Catholic church lacks the euphoria, senationalism and good feelings the new modern churches do.Its real easy to look at writings of the early church and say that something didn't mean what it did back then. I've read the writings and they look Catholic to me. I read them before I became Catholic and I was disurbed at what I read. I became Catholic because I had to, not because I wanted to. Basically because of acidemic honesty. Your grasping at straws at this point.
I'm grasping at nothing. I do not attend new modern churches and I certainly did not become a Christian because I had too. C.S. Lewis was reported as saying that he is a reluctant Christian. There is no such thing as a reluctant Christian. This is the very thing you have said, "I became Catholic because I had to." You and Lewis have made the same fatal flaw: rather than fall in love with the God of the Universe and accept His wooing of you, you took matters into your own hands and looked at the physical evidence, made a worldly decision (not a spiritual one), and thought you could ***ign yourself into the kingdom. But the word of God says, In John 6:44 KJV, "No man can come to me (Christ), except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Seek God on your face in prayer, Tealblue, not in the RCC dogma or from a worldly book. There is only one book that is trustworthy - the Christian Bible.
vladimir998
01-17-2010, 10:59 PM
RGS,
unable to actually deal with the irrefutable evidence I posted, went all paranoid:
Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you.
You're simply being dishonest. I already refuted your opening thread in the very second post of the thread. On that issue you did not recover. You just kept making excuses. I specifically rejoined the thread because I was shocked at how poorly you understood St. Ignatius of Antioch. You were easily refuted on that point as well. You have not recovered at all from that. And now you're just embarr***ing yourself by falsely claiming I, "Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you."
No, it is you who refuses to address the evidence put before you. About St. Ignatius, you can only lamely say you need to see the Greek - that's the excuse you use to get out of dealing with evidence that destroys your points or claims.
Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.
No, actually I am quite successful, while you are not only failing but post things that echo a disturbing paranoia common to poorly educated, sciolist anti-Catholics: "Typical Jesuit approach."
It will only get worse. As your failure here becomes more manifest, the person you really are will become ever more clear in your posts. The hatred of God, His Church and Catholics that you feel, the bitterness and frustration over your own failings in life and your inability to post even the most basic arguments or refute even the most basic of truths will cause you to lash out ever more irrationally. The paranoia you express is just the beginning.
And please note, you still have entirely failed to deal with the your utter and complete failure on St. Ignatius.
tealblue
01-18-2010, 11:19 AM
I'm grasping at nothing. I do not attend new modern churches and I certainly did not become a Christian because I had too. C.S. Lewis was reported as saying that he is a reluctant Christian. There is no such thing as a reluctant Christian. This is the very thing you have said, "I became Catholic because I had to." You and Lewis have made the same fatal flaw: rather than fall in love with the God of the Universe and accept His wooing of you, you took matters into your own hands and looked at the physical evidence, made a worldly decision (not a spiritual one), and thought you could ***ign yourself into the kingdom. But the word of God says, In John 6:44 KJV, "No man can come to me (Christ), except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Seek God on your face in prayer, Tealblue, not in the RCC dogma or from a worldly book. There is only one book that is trustworthy - the Christian Bible.
I never said I was a reluctant christian as I was perfectly happy where I was at. But as the evidece compounded I wasn't going to lie to myself forever. And yes I did seek God in prayer and thats where it lead me. Unbiased historians will mosly say that the Catholic church was the first christian church. And yes church meant the same back then as it does today.
Matt 18:16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18
The word church here is describing an actual governing body not just the body of christ. Notice it says THE church not a church. Anyway if you had a disagreement among believers how would you take it to the body of christ as a whole. Why would jesus even say take it to the church if he didn't have the church in mind as being authorataive.
Sorry Tealblue, I had my hopes up that you would be one RC who actually was interested in truth. Since you are insisting that the RCC is your god, then I can be of no further help to you. I told you the truth. It is not my *** to make you believe it.
tealblue
01-19-2010, 12:53 AM
I appreciate your motives, and I truly believe you are sincere.
Illya_Kuryakin
01-20-2010, 06:52 PM
Sorry Tealblue, I had my hopes up that you would be one RC who actually was interested in truth. Since you are insisting that the RCC is your god, then I can be of no further help to you. I told you the truth. It is not my *** to make you believe it.
RGS is your name Mike? You sound an awful like an anti-catholic who used to post on here and had alot of inner turmoil and anger toward Catholics in general. Your "arguments" sound alot like this person in that they contain no logic or common rationale.
Just curious.
Illya
Illya_Kuryakin
01-20-2010, 06:55 PM
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Vlad has already refuted you on this point and it's clear that you are not familir with language and semantics in general. Just the comment that you make "not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time" makes it clear that you don't understand how words are used. There are words that are used to translate the New Testament that were not "used' back then. However they were able to get the same point across. You don't sound like you understand textual criticism.
Kind of a ******.
Illya
Illya_Kuryakin
01-20-2010, 06:59 PM
Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from. If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what? The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god. Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such? Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not what I meant, have no leg to stand upon. Duh, let's see, how does the jingle go: I know you believe you understood what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. RCC double talk.
But, Vlad, this brings up a very interesting comparison. You claim I am taking these plain statements out of context, therefore, these statements do not mean what they plainly say. If this is so, then why do you take two statements out of context and claim they mean exacting what they say in the physical, when in context they do not mean a eucharist at all? Namely John 6:55-56
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
As I have noticed you remind of this fellow Michael who used to post on here and in fact i am almost positive you are the same person.
Illya
tealblue
01-20-2010, 07:34 PM
I don't think its mike but I did read about an interesting side note is that in the jewish culture Jesus would never have used eat my flesh as a metaphore because that term is offensive, even today for muslims. But anyway it doesn't sound like mike. I don't remember him quoting scripture much. He was more into quoting jack chick type stuff.
vladimir998
01-21-2010, 06:45 AM
I don't think its mike but I did read about an interesting side note is that in the jewish culture Jesus would never have used eat my flesh as a metaphore because that term is offensive, even today for muslims. But anyway it doesn't sound like mike. I don't remember him quoting scripture much. He was more into quoting jack chick type stuff.
Tealblue, you're right. If you look at Psalm 27:2 in the RSV/CE or any Protestant Bible for that matter you'll see that phrases like 'eat my flesh' means to slander someone. So, when someone says Jesus was using a metaphor then He was saying "Unless you slander me you will have no life in you" which makes no sense at all!!!
This is what anti-Catholics just don't get. They don't know the Bible nearly as well as they think they do.
RGS is your name Mike? You sound an awful like an anti-catholic who used to post on here and had alot of inner turmoil and anger toward Catholics in general. Your "arguments" sound alot like this person in that they contain no logic or common rationale.
Just curious.
Illya
Short memory Illya, Mike had difficulty in spelling, unlike you who has difficulty in thinking. Have I displayed a difficulty with spelling?
I appreciate your motives, and I truly believe you are sincere.
Yes I am sincere.
alanmolstad
02-10-2014, 09:12 AM
The catholic church does not teach that men becomes gods.....thats just silly
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.