Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[BereanRuss]

You are right, the priest or mediator is not “between” as an obstacle as you seem to represent. A mediator facilitates and enables contact, not stand it the way.

No, by definition, a mediator DOES stand between God and man. The man must go through the mediator in order to approach God. There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

I also agree that the priesthood of the NT is not “earthly”. It is spiritual. It emanates from the priesthood of Christ, which is spiritual. I am not sure what “earthly” means the way you use it, but clearly communion is a spiritual event. The only parts that come from the "earth’ are the fruit of the vine, and the wheat for the bread.

Well, again, we don’t agree. There is no need for any priest in the NT other than Jesus for two reasons:

1. Every believer has direct access to God through Jesus.
2. There is no longer any sacrifice to be offered to God.

Scripture is clear that we can defile ourselves when we take the body and blood in an unworthily manner. This condition, though spiritual, does have physical consequences. How can you profane something that is not present?

I won’t ague except to say that communion does not require a priest. It only requires believers.

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.

If Jesus is present wherever believers gather and those believers are celebrating communion, why would Jesus require a priest to be made present in the bread (if that is true) when he did not require a priest to be present in the first place?

so what do YOU think He meant when He said “unless you eat…you will not have life”?

Jesus was speaking in human terms to teach the spiritual truth that His life must be present inside the believer.

If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Jesus does not enter the heart of a man by means of the stomach. He enters the heart of a man by the power of the Spirit. …the words that I speak to you are Spirit and they are life.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

 

[ralphy]

Is your INTERPRETATION of the Word of God infallible?

michel

My interpretation of the word is NOT infallible, that is why I quote the “Word of God” which is infallible. Ralph

 

[BereanRuss]

I don’t know how much clearer Jesus can make himself in saying that we need to eat his Body and drink his Blood.kpeople::bible1:

Then you believe that those outside of the CC do not have eternal life?

 

[twb1621]

My interpretation of the word is not infallible, that is why I quote the “Word of God” which is not infallible. Ralph

Ralphy, you ran away from the Biblical questions in the other thread to get into them here?

 

[cazayoux]

My interpretation of the word is not infallible, that is why I quote the “Word of God” which is not infallible. Ralph

i know you meant that the ‘Word of God’ is infallible.

So there are two things at play here: (1) scripture and (2) the understanding of scripture.
We agree that (1) is infallible.
What about (2)?

If you know your interpretation (of that infallible Word of God) could be wrong, how do you know that your understanding of a passage actually represents the truth of that passage?

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

Not at all - but there is a strong difference between an infant who does not know, and someone who knows, but rejects what he knows.

If he is a child of God he will not reject the word of God.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

 

[ralphy]

i know you meant that the ‘Word of God’ is infallible.

So there are two things at play here: (1) scripture and (2) the understanding of scripture.
We agree that (1) is infallible.
What about (2)?

If you know your interpretation (of that infallible Word of God) could be wrong, how do you know that your understanding of a passage actually represents the truth of that passage?

michel

I study scripture with scripture to ensure that I am getting it correct, of course relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance. I also discuss any particular scripture with other fellow christains who are more learned than myself, to make certain I have it correct. Ralph

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know any Christian who is against baptism, do you? Peter himself tells us that baptism does not remove sin. Concerning baptism he says …not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

Here is the whole context of what Peter wrote: (I Peter 3:18-22)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

So in other words, according to Peter, salvation precedes salvation for the one being baptized no longer has the “filth of the flesh” but has a “good conscience toward God”. But you will disagree because of your tradition. When the scripture and tradition contradict, tradition always has more authority then the words of the Apostles themselves.

The word of this particular Apostle is that Baptism saves, not by washing the body clean of dirt, but by washing the soul clean of sin.

Peter was already instructed by the Lord Himself that the Gentiles should receive the Gospel and be saved. Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

And he began to comprehend the meaning of this, that it also includes the Gentiles, when the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles.

But the Holy Spirit has never yet come upon cattle, so we still, even to this day, do not baptize cattle, nor admit them into the fellowship of the Church. We still continue to milk them and eat them, although a broad definition of “creatures” could, literalistially, be understood to include cattle among those who are to be evangelized and saved.

 

[jmcrae]

If he is a child of God he will not reject the word of God.

So, if he rejects it, then he is not truly a child of God, is he?

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Amen!

 

[jmcrae]

Then you believe that those outside of the CC do not have eternal life?

God does as He pleases. I wouldn’t be laying any bets on it, though.

 

[BereanRuss]

But the preceding of the Holy Spirit helped Peter know that these Gentiles didn’t have to become good Jews (i.e. circumcision) prior to become good Catholics.

I tend to agree with you, however, there are other verses that indicate that the Holy Spirit is connected with faith

This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Regardless, God can and does baptize with His Spirit as He see fit. What is your point anyway? Are you saying that God only gives His Spirit to those who are baptized in the CC?

 

[judechild]

Regardless, God can and does baptize with His Spirit as He see fit. What is your point anyway? Are you saying that God only gives His Spirit to those who are baptized in the CC?

All validly baptized persons are members of the Catholic Church whether they know it or not; whether they accept it or not. There is only one Church.

 

[BereanRuss]

You are demonstrating the inefficiency of Scripture alone by your arguing personal opinions about scripture. Jesus left us with an authoritive interpreter. Jesus said to his disciples “I give you authority.” Your confusion illustrates your need for the Rock.

Didn’t you have to interpret Jesus’ words in order to believe this?

If you were John the Baptist, would you baptize people in the Jordan as God had commanded you or would you ignore God?

Based on whose authority would you baptize them?

 

[cazayoux]

I study scripture with scripture to ensure that I am getting it correct, of course relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance. I also discuss any particular scripture with other fellow christains who are more learned than myself, to make certain I have it correct. Ralph

Since your interpretation of one verse is fallible, studying it with another verse for which your interpretation is fallible will not ‘ensure’ anything will it?
It may give you a bit of a better feeling that you might understand it better, but it doesn’t guarantee that you properly understand it.
It’s obvious from these forums that there are different understandings of scripture, with everyone backing their understanding with other scripture… yet differences in understanding remain.
Appealing to someone else more learned than us is no guarantee either.
Can these people give us something the Holy Spirit cannot?
Do these people have an authority that is higher than the Holy Spirit?

The bottom line is that you do not have certainty that your understanding of scripture is correct.

michel

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know any Christian who is against baptism, do you?

I run into them all the time on the more fundamentalist-style Forums.

I have encountered plenty of unbaptized persons who consider themselves to have been “washed in the blood of the Lamb” simply by claiming to have done so. They get quite upset at any suggestion that they ought to go to a Church (or at least to a fellow Christian) and ask for baptism - they reply to this suggestion with reams of commentary on the theme of “I don’t need a Church to be saved.”

So - yeah - while I’m not sure that an unbaptized person can really be considered a “Christian,” as such, I certainly know plenty of people who consider themselves to be Christians, who reject Baptism.

 

[cazayoux]

No, by definition, a mediator DOES stand between God and man. The man must go through the mediator in order to approach God. There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

If a friend is sick and asks me to pray for him, aren’t I mediating for them by praying for them?
I am not putting myself between that person and God during this mediation.

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

Here is the whole context of what Peter wrote: (I Peter 3:18-22)

even baptism doth also now save us… (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) …

I tend to agree with you. I don’t know of any Christians that are not baptized so - mute point.

However, let me give you an example from my own life. When my daughter was little I did not have her baptized because I wanted her to be baptized of her own free will – and she was baptized with many of her peers. She made the decision when she was ready to make a public profession of faith.

I do not regret my decision because there is plenty of evidence that a person receives the Holy Spirit when they believe and if God has placed His Spirit in a person, no one can snatch them out of His hand.

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise…

 

[jmcrae]

If a friend is sick and asks me to pray for him, aren’t I mediating for them by praying for them?

No, you are interceding for him in prayer; you are not dying on the Cross for his sins.

Priests do not mediate (die on the Cross) for us. Only Jesus does that. Priests intercede for us.

 

[BereanRuss]

God does as He pleases. I wouldn’t be laying any bets on it, though.

God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know any Christian who is against baptism, do you?

I know plenty of folks who call themselves Christians that are “against” baptism in variousl ways. There was even one fella I met on here who insisted that Baptism had nothing whatever to do with water.

  Peter himself tells us that baptism does not remove sin.  Concerning baptism he says …not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

I guess we just read it differently, don’t we Russ? The Apostles taught that the immersion in water is not for the purpose of removing dirt from the body, but to remove it from the soul. No one can have a clear conscience before God without the cleansing blood of Christ, applied to the believer when he dies with Christ and is buried in baptism.

 So in other words, according to Peter, salvation precedes salvation for the one being baptized no longer has the “filth of the flesh” but has a “good conscience toward God”.

This really does not make any sense. According to Peter, we do not achieve salvation in this life, but the next.

But you will disagree because of your tradition. When the scripture and tradition contradict, tradition always has more authority then the words of the Apostles themselves.

No. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the words of the Apostles themselves. Sacred Tradition is a framework from which we correctly understand what was written.

Those who are separated from the Apostolic Teaching understand the words in many various and divergent ways.

Peter was already instructed by the Lord Himself that the Gentiles should receive the Gospel and be saved.  Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

But he did not “GET IT” until the Lord made it undeniably obvious to him, did he? You didn’t seen him out preaching to Gentiles. He had to be sent by the HS to the house of Cornelius, and it had to be demonstrated in a most obvious manner that he was to do this.