Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
CANman:
Hey,
Since St. John said “God is Spirit”, and we must worship Him in “Spirit and Truth” should we then only worship Him figuratively and not “really”?
Click to expand...
Context defines Christ’s meaning, to their understanding He said eat my literal flesh for quickening unto life, the profit of eternal life Jesus says:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The reason why you cannot grab various meanings of flesh and spirit found elsewhere in Scripture and use them here is because of context.

Words appear in context and context defines which meaning is meant when it is spoken, what subject is being discussed. One cannot take what is said about one subject and apply it to unrelated ideas.

For example, why is the following invalid:
Since St. John said “God is Spirit”, and man is made in the image of God how doth CANman type posts with spirit fingers? Shouldn’t he just float through a door or wall or something?
Click to expand...
 
😃
Ah! - the beauty of being protestant. You can make the bible say anything that you want it to. Sooo many denominations with difffering views. I know - I once was one. Finally saw the light - hope that you will too some day.
Oh - and by the way - yes lets obey Christ.

👍
 
Ah! - the beauty of being protestant. You can make the bible say anything that you want it to. Sooo many denominations with difffering views. I know - I once was one. Finally saw the light - hope that you will too some day.
Oh - and by the way - yes lets obey Christ.

👍
[/quote]

With Catholic “orders” numbering in the hundreds (if not thousands) and the entire divided into particular “eastern/western/whatever rites” and within these divisions a plethora of theological thought spanning revolutionary atheist (save they profess allegiance to the pope) to Traditionalist, how can you believe you now have a Bible that is interpreted exactly the same by everyone who calls themselves Catholic?

Fact is sola scripturaists agree more as to what the Bible says than do Catholics and it is clear whenever Catholic commentators desire to know what the bible says they employ Protestant exegetes:

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary will also be an instrument for rich ecumenical dialogue. Much of the progress made by biblical scholarship in the last decades and recorded in this book has been born of the intensive research of interpreters of various Christian Churches."-(Prentice-Hall Inc., 1990), xv
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
With Catholic “orders” numbering in the hundreds (if not thousands) and the entire divided into particular “eastern/western/whatever rites” and within these divisions a plethora of theological thought spanning revolutionary atheist (save they profess allegiance to the pope) to Traditionalist, how can you believe you now have a Bible that is interpreted exactly the same by everyone who calls themselves Catholic?

Fact is sola scripturaists agree more as to what the Bible says than do Catholics and it is clear whenever Catholic commentators desire to know what the bible says they employ Protestant exegetes:

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary will also be an instrument for rich ecumenical dialogue. Much of the progress made by biblical scholarship in the last decades and recorded in this book has been born of the intensive research of interpreters of various Christian Churches."-(Prentice-Hall Inc., 1990), xv
Click to expand...
Paragraph by paragraph, on reading that post, only 3 words come to mind.

By paragraph: Fiction, Fiction, Irrelevant.

Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture differs from sola scriptura Protestants for a number of reasons. A primary one is that Holy Scripture records both words written by men under inspiration, and history, written by God, who writes history as men write words. The rejection of the Sacramental aspect of the Christian faith leaves one only with the words, which, inspired though they are, are a truncation of the whole.

The sola scriptura advocates would have Catholics abandon the Sacramental aspects of the faith. We keep them, because they were there from the beginning.

The quoted derogatory comments about the Catholic Church are not to be replied to, as if they were valid. They derive from a reduced measuring system, which leaves out important dimensions, and tries to draw conclusions from what is left. It is as if volume were commented on using only measures of length and width.

As I noted earlier, fullness is GOOD.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
**John 6:24-29 ** (New American Standard)
*So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus.
When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”
Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” *

Did the Jews literally seek Jesus because they had literally eaten of the loaves and had been filled? Yes, truly, truly.

John 6:30-33 (New American Standard)
So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’”
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

Did Jesus’ Father literally give them bread? Yes, truly, truly.

In verses 34-42, Jesus speaks of being the bread from heaven, and the Jews ask how he can be from heaven since they know his parents. They don’t question how He is bread, but they do question how He can say he is from heaven.

John 6:43-51 (New American Standard)
Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
"It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
"I am the bread of life.
"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Will those who believe Jesus literally have eternal life? Yes, truly truly.
Not carnally on Earth, as in the literary character Dorien Gray.

Notice in verse 51 that Jesus first says that the bread from heaven is His flesh.
Do the Jews think He is being literal, that they must literally eat his flesh? “Is that what this guy wants us to do?”

John 6:52 (New American Standard)
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

It appears that they are taking his words literally.

“Literally” as in “Actually”, Really" “Truly”.
 
John 6:51-59 (New American Standard)
" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Must one literally eat His flesh and drink His blood?

I remind you: Did the Jews literally seek Jesus because they had literally eaten of the loaves and had been filled? Yes, truly, truly.
Did Jesus’ Father literally give them bread? Yes, truly, truly
Will those who believe Jesus literally have eternal life? Yes, truly truly

Must one be born of water and the Spirit, reader? Yes, truly truly
But not born again carnally.

When the Jews ask how Jesus can give his flesh to eat, Jesus says truly, truly. He says his flesh is real meat. He says his blood is real drink. He says it REPEATEDLY.

Is He saying they must eat Him and drink His blood carnally? Let’s return to the story.

John 6:60-64
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”
But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
“But there are some of you who do not believe.”
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him .

Did Jesus literally ascend to where he was before? Yes, truly truly.
And some will not believe this literal event.

Jesus is not surprised that some will not believe his LITERAL words that they are to eat His flesh and drink His blood truly, really, spiritually.

I posed a question and I will now answer it.
Must one literally eat His flesh and drink His blood? Yes, truly, truly, not carnally but spiritually.

Does “spirit” mean “symbolic”? No.
The Holy Spirit is spirit. Is he symbolically God? No. He IS God. Really, Truly, Literally, Actually.

God is spirit. Is He real or symbolic? He is Real, True, Literal.
 
John 6:52-53 (New American Standard)
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Was that his full answer? No.

John 6:54 (New American Standard)
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Is that His complete answer? No.
Does he mean we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood?

John 6:55 (New American Standard)
“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.”

Is that His complete answer? No.
What is He trying to tell us?

**John 6:56 ** (New American Standard)
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Ok. Is THAT his complete answer? No.
Does he literally, really, truly, actually, want us to eat Him?

John 6:57 (New American Standard)
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

Is He finished with His answer yet? No.

John 6:58 (New American Standard)
“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

And THAT completes His answer to the question “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

We ARE to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Literally? Yes.

Carnally? No.
 
LetsObeyChrist,

agian, here’s my challenge, give me one reference of a church father or early christian writting that supports your view that the eucharist is not literally the body and blood of christ but symbolically means to believe in him.
 
In regards to religious orders and various rites of the Church, why should we all follow the exact same traditions and liturgy? Why should we all have the exact same emphasis? Diverisity within unity is a good thing. All valid religious orders and the various ‘rites’ of the Church are in full consent with the Church’s teachings. Doctrine is universal, traditions and pratices can vary. As for liberal Catholics…this is of no relevence to your point. Just because the Church teaches with authority doesn’t mean that everyone, even those who call themselves Catholics, has to listen. They have a choice. Even in Paul’s day there were dissenters…does this mean that the New Testament Church wasn’t the true Church? Of course not! But freewill can be exercised even within the Church. (Remember, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a net…Mat. 13:47).

Perhaps I misread what you meant, but you seemed to imply earlier that the Pope does not believe in eternal damnation or a literal hell. If this is what you were implying, you are in error. The Church always has and always will faithfully maintain the apostolic deposit of faith in its fulness…including the doctrine of eternal damnation.

As has already been pointed out a number of times, when Christ says that the "the spirit quickens, and the flesh profits nothing’ he is telling us that only by the Spirit can we understand this teaching…our flesh, looking at this from our human perspective, will be of no avail. “The flesh” refers to the sinful nature in Scripture, as I’m sure you are aware.

If eating Christ’s flesh is to be taken symbolically, then is verse 51 symbolic as well? Here Christ tells us that He will be offering His flesh for all the world…then He goes on to tell us that we must eat this said flesh. This helps set up the context…the bread from heaven (metaphor) is His flesh, as He clearly states in verse 51.

As well, you haven’t answered all my questions from the earlier post, I’ll re-post a few of them, because it is getting to be a big thread. (I understand you not being able to respond to every post…it’s all against you 😉 ).
God bless
 
  1. Why did Jesus question the Apostles on whether or not they would leave Him as well? They already believed in Him, so why would He suggest that this would be a hard teaching for them to accept if that is all it meant?
  2. Why did Jesus use a metaphor that the Jews and all ancient audiences would clearly take as literally, for the symbolic meaning meant to inflict grave harm?
  3. Why did St. John choose such literal language when writing his Gospel in the Greek? If it was meant to be symbolic, why did he not simply choose the standard word ‘to eat’? First John has Jesus using the word phago, which simply means to eat (verses 23 to 53), but, as to emphasize the point, it changes to a more graphic and literal word to drive the point home to the grumbling Jews. John then moves on to use the word trogo…which conveys the idea of ‘gnawing’ and ‘chewing’. This is not the vocabulary that would be chosen when speaking symbolically.
  4. When the Jews grumble about how such a thing is possible (to eat His flesh and drink His blood) Christ just re-emphasizes the point again and again, using literal language. Why?
  5. Why did Paul say that to eat the Eucharist unworthily is to ‘sin against the body and blood of the Lord’? (1 Cor. 11:27) If it is symbolic, why would God strike you down over it (1 Cor. 11:30) and hold you accountable for profaning the Lord’s body and blood?
  6. If the Eucharist is symbolic, why did John see Christ as a Lamb who was slain, standing before the Father? This suggests that His sacrifice is being made present before the Father for all eternity (of course, His work is done, but the sacrament transcends space and time). (Revelation 5:6)
  7. The fact that Christ is said to be a priest forever suggests a sacrificial ministry…if the Eucharist is symbolic, is He still functioning as a priest? (Hebrews 6:20)
  8. Why is there still an altar in Heaven? (Revelation 6:9, 8:3, 8:4, 9:13, 14:18, and 16:7).
  9. Why does Paul call the Eucharistic table an altar? (Hebrews 13:10)
  10. Why is it that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (You saw a couple quotes earlier in this thread). St. Ignatius was taught by St. John himself…why would he and the Church be so wrong on such an important issue so quickly? (Only a couple decades after the apostle died, we have St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, explaining to us that orthodox Christianity maintains that the Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of our Lord). Edit: In your rebuttal quotation, St. Ignatious says, and you even underlined it, that the bread He is speaking of is the “flesh” of Christ, so this demonstrates our point…he is nourished spiritually, yes, but the Eucharist is also physical. Why did it take so many centuries for Christians to properly understand this passage? Edit: Please provide us with quotes of orthodox Christians who rejected the Real Presence prior to the Reformation.
  11. Why have all ancient and apostolic Christian traditions always maintained that the Eucharist is the true flesh and body of the Lord (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian)? Protestants and Catholics have been apart for a mere 500 years…the Assyrians have been in schism for 1500 years, 3 times as long, yet they also have no doubt in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they have maintained the ancient teachings of the apostles in this regard.
 
40.png
twf:
LetsObeyChrist: In symbolic terms the phrase ‘to eat ones flesh and drink ones blood’ did indeed mean to inflict grievous injury. The Jews knew this…the context told them nothing different. If it is so obvious that Christ meant belief, why did they assume he meant it literally and left him? In fact, Christ even asked the apostles if they’d leave him as well. Why did he do this? He knew that they believed in Him…so why would He ask them if they’d leave over the teaching that you must believe in Christ to be saved? It makes no sense. Christ first speaks of belief, but then he moves on. Faith must come first, so He spoke of faith first of all…but then He moved into the Eucharist.

Please answer the following points:
  1. Why did Jesus question the Apostles on whether or not they would leave Him as well? They already believed in Him, so why would He suggest that this would be a hard teaching for them to accept if that is all it meant?
  2. Why did Jesus use a metaphor that the Jews and all ancient audiences would clearly take as literally, for the symbolic meaning meant to inflict grave harm?
  3. Why did St. John choose such literal language when writing his Gospel in the Greek? If it was meant to be symbolic, why did he not simply choose the standard word ‘to eat’? First John has Jesus using the word phago, which simply means to eat (verses 23 to 53), but to, as to emphasize the point, it changes to a much more graphic and literal word to drive the point home to the grumbling Jews. John then moves on to use the word trogo…which conveys the idea of ‘gnawing’ and ‘chewing’. This is not the vocabulary that would be chosen when speaking symbolically.
  4. When the Jews grumble about how such a thing is possible (to eat His flesh and drink His blood) Christ just re-emphasizes the point again and again, using literal language. Why?
  5. Why did Paul say that to eat the Eucharist unworthily is to ‘sin against the body and blood of the Lord’? (1 Cor. 11:27) If it is symbolic, why would God strike you down over it (1 Cor. 11:30) and hold you accountable for profaning the Lord’s body and blood?
  6. If the Eucharist is symbolic, why did John see Christ as a Lamb who was slain, standing before the Father? This suggests that His sacrifice is being made present before the Father for all eternity (of course, His work is done, but the sacrament transcends space and time). (Revelation 5:6)
  7. The fact that Christ is said to be a priest forever suggests a sacrificial ministry…if the Eucharist is symbolic, is He still functioning as a priest? (Hebrews 6:20)
  8. Why is there still an altar in Heaven? (Revelation 6:9, 8:3, 8:4, 9:13, 14:18, and 16:7).
  9. Why does Paul call the Eucharistic table an altar? (Hebrews 13:10)
  10. Why is it that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (You saw a couple quotes earlier in this thread). St. Ignatius was taught by St. John himself…why would he and the Church be so wrong on such an important issue so quickly? (Only a couple decades after the apostle died, we have St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, explaining to us that orthodox Christianity maintains that the Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of our Lord). Why did it take so many centuries for Christians to properly understand this passage if your interpretation is so elementary? (I’m sure there were various sects that may have denied the Real Presence…but they would be heretics that you would not want to be associated with, so this does not help your case).
    (continued)
Click to expand...
 
twf said:
11) Why have all ancient and apostolic Christian traditions always maintained that the Eucharist is the true flesh and body of the Lord (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian)? Protestants and Catholics have been apart for a mere 500 years…the Assyrians have been in schism for 1500 years, 3 times as long, yet they also have no doubt in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they have maintained the ancient teachings of the apostles in this regard.

I’m a former Evangelical myself, and forgive me if my style above seems to confrontational. I truly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a immeasurable gift. Besides objective arguments, there are also subjective ones. The Eucharist has had a profound impact on many holy people…and many of the saints had a profound devotion to Christ in the Eucharist. Many people have experienced Christ in a very real way through the Eucharist. Many others have witnessed incredible Eucharistic miracles. (Such as the multiplication of the Consecrated Wine, for example, as one of our fellow boarders reported he had witnessed).

I hope you are blessed in your journey, as you seek to grow closer to our Lord. Please keep in mind, though, that regardless of how thorough and scholarly a defence of the Real Presence may be, the Eucharist is a mystery, and as such, the mortal mind will never fully comprehend the miracle that occurs during the consecration.
Click to expand...

LetsObeyChrist, I haven’t seen you addressing twf’s qusetions; :rolleyes: I would very much like your response to these… :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Fiat:
LetsObeyChrist:

I have run across many Protestants who criticize the sacramental nature of my Catholic faith. Whenever I discuss the sacraments with them, they immediately dismiss the discussion by stating that all we have to do for our salvation is BELIEVE IN CHRIST. They usually then quote John 3:16 from the KJV. My question for them is what they mean by “believe in Christ”? Is believing saying a sinner’s prayer? Is believing just confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? Does believing involve baptism? Does believing involve repentance for sin? Mormons believe in Christ. Are they saved? Muslims believe in Christ. Are they saved? Demons believe in Christ. Are they saved? Just telling someone that all he needs to do to be saved is believe in Christ is well and good, but I honestly have no idea what that means, except that it seems to me that believing in Christ means believing in all that He said, in all that He did, in all that He taught, in all that He is. I often wonder how someone can say he “believes in Christ,” but yet ignores Christ’s clearest commands. Some Christians don’t believe in the necessity of baptism, even though Christ clearly commanded it. As a further example, some Christians don’t believe we must consume Christ’s flesh and blood, in spite of clear language. However, I can accept that you may not find that command as clearly as we Catholics do. Just explain for us then what believing in Christ means. A good friend of mine once told me precisely what you are telling us Catholics here. She said that all we need to do to receive Christ’s blessings and salvation is believe. I wonder what advice this same friend of mine, and if you, for that matter, would have given the blind man whom Christ healed in John 9:6-7. Would you have stopped the blind man on the way to the pool and said, “Hey, you don’t need to do what Christ told you to do by washing in the pool. All you need to do is believe that you’ve received His miracle and you’ll be fine.” Essentially, that is what you are telling us Catholics. I pray that the Lord will someday reveal to you what he revealed to the disciples on the way to Emmaus.
Click to expand...
This was the problem I had as a former Protestant. I would read tracts and other Protestant literature that said all you had to do to be saved was “believe in Jesus.” Yet, when I read my Bible (particularly the Gospels) I would read where Jesus says no all who say “Lord, Lord” will be saved, and the parables, of the talents and sheep and goats made it obvious to me that what we DID was just as important as what we said. It seems Jesus command to "deny oneself, take up your cross and follow me are pretty much ignored in most Protestant circles…
 
Little Mary:
There is a difference between the flesh and His flesh. He makes the difference quite clear.
Click to expand...
Good point! If LOC means that Christ’s flesh is of no avail (according to his uninfallible interpretation) then it is time to buy Yarmulkes 🙂

The Catholic faith is based on the faith of Christ’s flesh being of ALL AVAIL, TOTAL AVAIL, totally powerful, to salvation!
 
This argument will probably go on for another 2000 years or until Jesus comes back. Some say naturally others say spiritual. Just maybe we are both right. If not then one of us has lost on some of Gods grace. Because of this mentality I believe it will not keep us from entering into the kingdom of heaven.I guess it will be one of those questions that will be answered in the kingdom. :confused:
 
40.png
Sirach14:
John 6:64: Christ just gave His disciples a command to to eat His flesh, and now you are trying to say that Christ meant this was all a waste of time? Is this your interpretation of what ’ the flesh is of no avail’ means? "And were the disciples to understand the line ’ the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life’ as nothing but a circumlocution, and a fairly clumsy one at that, for ‘symbolic’

Remember the Bible never uses the word Spirit in a symbolic sense.
Click to expand...
Circumlocution?!? Christ’s response couldn’t be more direct or economical.

To their misunderstanding Christ said eating flesh profits or quickens unto life Christ observes eating flesh profits not, it is the Spirit that quickens.

Then Christ interpreted what “eating my flesh…drinking my blood” symbolize, “spirit” and “life” respectively.

DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Assimilating the Spirit of Christ, all the truth about His Person and Work and drinking the life of Christ which is commitment to God, obedience unto the Most high, results in Eternal life for that is “true belief in Christ.”

Belief without works is dead, one must ingest the life of the Gospel message, do it and not be hearers only.

KJV James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Orthodox belief in monotheism does not save if one is a devil, rebellious to the core. One must do what is required, truly believe, trust in, lean upon Christ for salvation, truly manifest He is LORD and Saviour by trusting in Him and doing what He requires.

Not only have knowledge of the letter of Christ, but also be obedient to the Spirit of it, just as Christ explained:

John 6:28-29 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…

This belief was more than they were willing to give:

John 6:33-41 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son and believeth in him may have life everlasting. And I will raise him up in the last day. 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

They were willing to give him intellectual assent, vs 34. They were not willing to ingest Christ and do what He says, vrs 41.

The entire context is illustrating the necessity of commitment to Christ as LORD and Saviour if one desires eternal life.
 
40.png
Sirach14:
They don’t concur with the Church Fathers either. I mean who should we believe, the Apostles, who received their teaching from Our Lord Himself, and the Apostles in turn handed the teaching to the Fathers, and then to the Church; or do we believe someone who was born two thousand years later who has made up his mind never to believe what the RCC teaches about the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Catholic apologist appeal to patristic testimony is undermined the real fact they don’t heed that testimony in many areas, for example chiliasm (Rv 20):

Revelation 20:4…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished…

We must now point out how Papias… says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.-Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 154).

Or Athanasius’ rejection of any council of men as being able to promulgate doctrine not already announced in the divine scriptures:

but about the faith they wrote not, It seemed good,' but, Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.

When Athanasius says:

Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe

Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing

***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.

Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the church is to be ultra conservative (=sola scripturaist):

In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.- Apology, c. vi, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol III, Wm B Eerdmans Pub, 1977 reprint, p. 246.

So when Catholics actually do heed these and other Patristic doctrines then any appeal to their teaching would at least be consistent.

Catholic inconsistency undermines their authority completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top