Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    RGS
    Guest

    Default 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?

  2. #2
    vladimir998
    Guest

    Default Typical Protestant lack of knowledge

    As usual, an anti-Catholic, in this case RGS, stoops to quoteing out of context:

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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 [COLOR="Red"]"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[/COLOR]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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    So Vlad, as the RCC catechsim states, do you expect to become God?
    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.

  3. #3
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by vladimir998 View Post
    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)

  4. #4
    vladimir998
    Guest

    Default RGS pretends again

    RGS,

    You wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    Nothing was quoted out of context.
    Yes, it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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?

  5. #5
    RGS
    Guest

    Default Out of Context is an old RCC Trick :D

    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."

  6. #6
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    RGS
    Guest

    Default To Tealblue

    So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    vladimir998
    Guest

    Default (sigh)

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post


    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."

  12. #12
    RGS
    Guest

    Default Who Are The 35000 - Revelation 17:5

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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."

  13. #13
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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

  15. #15
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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

  17. #17
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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)

  18. #18
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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?

  19. #19
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  20. #20
    RGS
    Guest

    Default verse 31

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

    This is getting too long. I don't believe in taking too big a bite. It takes time to chew, before moving on.

    RGS

  21. #21
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  22. #22
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  23. #23
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Th 1/7/10
    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RGS; 01-08-2010 at 08:16 PM.

  24. #24
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by tealblue; 01-08-2010 at 11:07 PM. Reason: add more info

  25. #25
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by tealblue; 01-08-2010 at 11:25 PM. Reason: adding

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •