Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

Unlike scripture your post is unclear. What “authority” are you requesting, precisely?

Martin Luther.

LetsObeyChrist:

Scripture is the authority

No, Martin Luther is your authority–above scripture and God because you are a “Sola Scripturist”(sic) who believes Martin Luther’s theory of Sola Scriptura even though Sola Scriptura isn’t in the bible anywhere. See some of my previous posts you have ignored for refutation.

LetsObeyChrist:

but I suspect that is not the authority you request I produce.

He wants you to admit what you’ve been implying all along, whether you realize it or not – that when it comes to divine revelation, you’ll take Martin Luther’s command to you (S.S.) over Jesus’ commands any day.

LetsObeyChrist:

Then you allude to ïevidence before the NT was writtenÍ for “real presence.” I suspect you referring to Ignatius and if you searched this thread for that name you will see I did treat his words on this.

Mr. Sola Scripturist has treated Ignatius. Branching out the personal authority given to you by Martin Luther to interpret non-scriptural texts as well as scriptural? Why interpret them? They aren’t Scripture.

You invalidly claim yourself as the ultimate interpreter of scripture and seek to impose your interpretation on others without valid ordination from Christ through his Church.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

a snippet from a discourse on this topic by Scott Hahn…

It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’"

Well, some people try to use that verse to nullify everything which is so patently obvious in the preceding verses. I used to as well until I tried to deal as honestly and prayerfully as possible with that passage. I’m talking about verse 63. If the disciples had just proceeded to take the flesh off the body of Christ right there and drink His blood, they would have done nothing supernaturally beneficial. Jesus is saying, “It’s the Spirit that gives life,” (1)and so wait until the Spirit is given.

When I breath my spirit upon the Cross. When the Spirit comes down at Pentecost, but especially when the spirit of Christ raises the body of Christ from the dead, it will be (2)the Holy Spirit that makes Christ’s flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone.

“And the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” What words? That you’ve got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. (3)So we can’t just say, “Well, the words themselves are all we need;” because if the words alone are all we take, we’re disobeying the words themselves. Did you catch that? I used to always say to these Catholics in Bible studies, “Look at verse 63. It’s the words of Christ that give life.” The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That’s right, but what are those words? If you just simply take the words without the Eucharist, you’re disobeying the words because the words say, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” And it’s because of the Holy Spirit that we receive life in that flesh and now it all comes together. (2a)There’s no either/or; there’s a both/and.

In 63 we discover why Christ’s flesh and blood will be so powerful and animating for supernatural life. Verse 66, “After this, many of His disciples drew back…” (4)We get the impression that the vast majority of them said, “This is just too much.” “…and no longer went about with him. And Jesus turned to the twelve;” he didn’t apologize. He didn’t say, “Now that we’re down to twelve, I’ll tell you what I really meant.” He didn’t say that at all. In fact he is perfectly willing for this obstacle to remain scandalous even to the twelve. “Do you also wish to go away. Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go?’” Almost implying we would leave if there was somebody else that we could trust more than you because what you said is rather baffling. But he says, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God."Underline and footnotes mine. The 4000 character limit forces my reply into four posts.

1)“It’s the Spirit that gives life” is Christ’s direct response to what scandalized them, the idea eating His literal flesh gives life or profit.

DRA John 6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Note the order, “the flesh profiteth nothing” follows “It is the spirit that quickeneth,” clearly Christ is not going off on a tangent about the Holy Spirit. Rather He is stating a fact, flesh eating does not quicken, the Holy Spirit does. Eating my literal flesh would profit you nothing.

How do we know Christ is referring to eating His literal flesh and not the carnal nature of mankind or the flesh of other men or beasts?

Context, Christ asks : Doth this [eat my flesh] scandalize you? and so His next words are in direct reference to these words about eating flesh.

Continued

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

2)" the Holy Spirit that makes Christ’s flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone.

Hahn’s interpretation is not parsimonous adding the entity of the world after Pentecost. Christ’s audience knew nothing of that world and therefore it is impossible they would interpret this as a discourse on the Holy Spirit and His activity on earth after Pentecost, through Christ’s literal flesh.

2a)Moreover Hahn is ignoring Christ’s question Doth this [eat my flesh] scandalize you?, His response in v. 63 (=64 in Douay Rheims) therefore must be understood as answering this question. Hahn’s proposed ‘two-tier ministry of flesh and Spirit’ is expressly contradicted by the opposition of spirit against flesh: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.

If Christ were discoursing about the Holy Spirit after Pentecost then He was, in effect, babbling nonsense to these disciples who are objecting to eating His literal flesh for life and profit.

Such irrelevant incoherence is impossible for Christ who demonstrates precision in His argumentatin unrivaled among men (Jn 7:46) and addressed clearly all He took issue against (Mk 12:28).

3)"So we can’t just say, “Well, the words themselves are all we need…”

Does anyone but Mr. Hahn say this? Why this straw man?

When Christ says The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life the exact words He is referring to are identified by “Doth this [eat my flesh] scandalize you?” and “the flesh profiteth nothing.”

Eating Christ, the Bread from heaven, the true food of life, His flesh and His blood, these words are “spirit and life.”

That is a direct rebuttal they speak of literal eating of bread, flesh and blood, a distinctly non spiritual activity that cannot grant the eater quickening, i.e., Eternal life or any spiritual profit.

These words are not flesh, they are spirit and life. These symbols do not convey the flesh or literal meaning but the spirit and life covered by the flesh.

Only the act of believing in Christ results in Spirit quickening unto eternal life.As “eating Christ’s Flesh” and “drinking Christ’s blood” are acts that result in Eternal life, these acts must figuratively refer to believing in Christ.

That is confirmed when Christ says His words are spirit and life. They are to the doer of the real meaning of them whereas those who eat literal flesh do so unprofitably.

Context confirms this is Christ’s meaning. The student of this context will note the entire is repetitive, the same event is being rerun with only slight differences therefore the meaning of the symbols is interpreted in context:

John 6:26 Jesus 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. 27 Labour 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. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

continued

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

John 6:47-67 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? {offend: or, scandalize, or, cause you to stumble} 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

It is clear the theme is true belief in Christ, a belief that ingest Him and makes His Person and Work part of one’s being.

Hence Christ rejected their casual belief for which in return they desired free food, vs 6:26f.

Continued

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

4)“In fact he is perfectly willing for this obstacle to remain scandalous even to the twelve.”

About this Mr. Hahn is correct, the entire context is testing the faith of ALL His audience. Nothing in the context suggests the disciples understood Christ’s words figuratively, AT THAT TIME.

In fact the gospel record often reveals the Twelve were unable to properly interpret Christ’s figurative sayings:

Matthew 16:11-12 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

However the existence of verse 63 constitutes an overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence Christ did make it clear to them these words were “spirit and life” and did not convey the flesh meaning of the symbols used.

Eating literal flesh does not profit the spirit at all, only the Holy Spirit quickens unto eternal life. As Christ was answering their objection to eating His literal flesh this answer is inclusive of it. Eating Christ’s flesh does not profit anyone nor quicken them unto eternal life.

The Holy Spirit quickens only when true ingestion of Christ occurs, when someone believes in Him as LORD and Saviour (Rm 3:20,28; 4:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:9; 2 Tm 1:9).

If the Eucharist were an 'antidote for mortality" as some ECFs proclaimed then the propostion “Eat the Eucharist and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” would be made in the NT.

On the contrary the Scripture reads:

Acts 16:31 But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

It is impossible one be saved in the name of the Eucharist, by it:

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

kevinfraser:

Martin Luther.

No, Martin Luther is your authority–above scripture and God because you are a “Sola Scripturist”(sic) who believes Martin Luther’s theory of Sola Scriptura even though Sola Scriptura isn’t in the bible anywhere. See some of my previous posts you have ignored for refutation.

He wants you to admit what you’ve been implying all along, whether you realize it or not – that when it comes to divine revelation, you’ll take Martin Luther’s command to you (S.S.) over Jesus’ commands any day.

Mr. Sola Scripturist has treated Ignatius. Branching out the personal authority given to you by Martin Luther to interpret non-scriptural texts as well as scriptural? Why interpret them? They aren’t Scripture.

You invalidly claim yourself as the ultimate interpreter of scripture and seek to impose your interpretation on others without valid ordination from Christ through his Church.

If you truly want to converse about my position on sola scriptura you will have to know what I believe and not propose someone else’ ideas as mine.

You might start with post #281, address those particulars I raised.

As I am trying to answer all posts to me and have only just finished replying to post # 146 it will be some time before I respond.

But if you actually do address what I say and not fictional narrative of your own creation it is likely I will respond.

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

Originally Posted by SteveG
With roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, and of those roughly 64% being Catholic or Orthodox, both of which utterly reject Sola Scriptura, I’d say that you are actually in the minority in this understanding.
At one time only a minority believed the world round or that blacks were equals

At one time only a minority believed the world round or that blacks were equals.

Your ignorance and lack of honesty in this thread are making addressing your nonsensical claims a real chore. Each time you are refuted in a claim or shown wrong, you simply change the subject or twist into a new issue.

My comment was in response to a foolish comment you made that ‘EVERYONE knows knows Sola Scriptura to be true.’ When I showed the idiocy of that comment, you tried to turn it into some nonsensical discussion about the majority at one point believine the world was flat, which by the way shows your further ignorance as that is a myth perpetuated by modern society to try to ‘emberass’ prior religious ages. If you are actually interested in educating yourself, read this…
id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html

LetsObeyChrist:

Contrary to what you have heard MT 23:2 “Moses’ Seat” is an illustration of Christ’s “sola scripturaism” at work.

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Nice try, but the words he speaks are ‘do what they bid you’. He recognizes their authority to teach, and…

LetsObeyChrist:

The disciples having been directly taught this by Christ, refuse to obey them who sit in Moses’ seat when they command rebellion against the Word of God:

…They did this because Christ had clearly passed this authority to them in Matt 16 and Matt 18 when he gave them the authority to bind and loose. If you ACTUALLY knew something about 1st century Judaism instead of pretending you did, you’d know that it is fully accepted that binding and loosing in that culture and time were symbolic statements representing the authority to teach, instruct and interpret on religious matters. When Christ gave this authority to them, they in essense were granted the seat of Moses. Your bluffings aren’t fooling anybody who knows something about these matters.

LetsObeyChrist:

The teaching of Sola scriptura is pervasive throughout Scripture, implicitly and explicitly:

I’ll ask you the original question you failed to answer and tried to twist out of. Even if Sola Scriptura was in the bible (and it is not), what books would it apply to and how would a follower of Christ know which ones they were?

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ then gives this man a marvelous opportunity to truly fulfill what is required for life eternal, “follow me (in truth),” let no material considerations keep you from me.

This is another way of saying “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have life in yourself.”

I finally get it. Anywhere that Jesus doesn’t speak in the way that fits your pre-concieved notions so you can deny the meaning in John 6, all you have to do is reformulate it in some nonsenscical manner and say, ‘see, this means eat my flesh, which really means, believe in me.’ and everything is resolved for you. Your ignorance knows no bounds. I guess when Christ said that one must believe and be baptized (MT 16:16) could be understood to mean that since there’s water involved and you can drink water, that REALLY means you should eat and drink me to be saved. That’s about what your exegetical (if they can be called that) gymnastic sound like.

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

Hahn’s interpretation is not parsimonous

HA! Hilarious! And your’s is?

LetsObeyChrist:

If Christ were discoursing about the Holy Spirit after Pentecost then He was, in effect, babbling nonsense to these disciples who are objecting to eating His literal flesh for life and profit.

Such irrelevant incoherence is impossible for Christ who demonstrates precision in His argumentatin unrivaled among men (Jn 7:46) and addressed clearly all He took issue against (Mk 12:28).

It means no such thing. It means regardless of what His meaning, it was apparently beyond their capacity to understand. Their failure to understand does not make it incoherent ramblings. It speaks more of them, then of him. His precision was unrivaled, but throughout scripture, their inability to comprehend those arguments are everywhere apparent.

LetsObeyChrist:

Only the act of believing in Christ results in Spirit quickening unto eternal life.As “eating Christ’s Flesh” and “drinking Christ’s blood” are acts that result in Eternal life, these acts must figuratively refer to believing in Christ.

This is your private interpretation alone. You have repeatedly be shown to make the two things equivelant when they are not because it suits you. I’ll use my earlier example…

Driving my car gets me to work
Riding the bus gets me to work
Therefore driving my car is the same thing as riding the bus.

…The result is the same for the two actions while the elements are manifestly different.

Personally, my charity to read and respond to this thread has dried up. You are clearly convicted of your interpretation and will not be moved by argumentation as are we. Take it however you like, but I’ll stick to praying for you and refrain from responding any further as the silliness of this thread ceased being amusing quite some time ago.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

SteveG:

Personally, my charity to read and respond to this thread has dried up. You are clearly convicted of your interpretation and will not be moved by argumentation as are we. Take it however you like, but I’ll stick to praying for you and refrain from responding any further as the silliness of this thread ceased being amusing quite some time ago.

and

I get the feeling that we may have a fundamentalist’s “missionary” project to witness the “truth” to Catholics on our hands. (I notice a minimum of "profile"information provided.)

I have not seen one original thought put forward in denying the Real Presence. A quick reference to Karl’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” covers everything that has been asserted, and nothing that is not covered in that book has appeared in the assertions against Catholic truth.

However, we’ve seen a marvellous manifestation of the shortcomings of sola scriptura.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

Millions through the ages have interpreted this similarly, I am not alone.

Ahh no they havent. A symbolic Eucharist was first taught by John Calvin. Million believe it NOW but in Calvins day it was a NEW Doctrine. A NEW Gospel. What does Paul tell us to do in that situation? Rejct it.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Gerry Hunter:

However, we’ve seen a marvellous manifestation of the shortcomings of sola scriptura.

I want to elaborate on this. What sola scriptura precludes is what George Weigel refers to the the “sacramental imagination.” Here is what he says about it:

We’ve spoken before about the bedrock Catholic conviction that stuff counts. Chesterton frequently believed that, although it took him until age fifty-two to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. Thus, even in his pre-Catholic years, GKC was an ardent defender of the sacramental imagination – the core Catholic conviction that God saves and sanctifies the world through the materials of the world. You’ve probably heard it said that Catholicism is uneasy in the world, that Catholicism demeans the world and the flesh. Don’t believe it for a second.

Catholicism takes the world, and the things of the world, far more seriously than those who like to think of themselves as worldly. Water, salt, and oil are the tangibles by which sanctify grace is conferred in the sacrament of baptism; bread and wine are the materials through which Christ gives his body and blood to his people in the sacrament of the Eucharist; in the sacrament of matrimony, the consummation of marital love completes the vows exchanged at the Catholic couple’s wedding; oil brings healing in the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, as it conveys the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation. None of this happens by Harry Potter-like wizardry, but because the world was sacramentally configured by God “in the beginning” (cf. Genesis 1:1) – and still is today (cf. everything around you). What we experience here in what skeptics call the “real world” is a window into the really real world that makes this world possible, the world of transcendent Truth and Love. The ordinary stuff of the world is the material God uses to bring us into communion with the truly extraordinary – with God himself.

– George Weigel, “Letters to a Young Catholic” Chapter 6, page 86.
(All italics in the original.)

To embrace sola scripture is to discard the sacramental imagination. To cling to it is to find the whole concept unimaginable, and to become poorer for it, both as a Christian and as a person.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

If you truly want to converse about my position on sola scriptura

What’s the point of debating the truth of a lie? Give your head a shake.

There is one father of all lies, LetsObeyLetsObeyChrist, and he is called Satan. Except that’s his REAL name. You’re the one who keeps insisting Martin Luther’s authority beats God’s hands down any day. That’s what we’re all trying to flag you down about.

LetsObeyChrist:

you will have to know what I believe and not propose someone else’ ideas as mine.

Hey, you’re the one who so proudly stuck the ‘Sola Scripturist’(sic) label on yourself, then used non-biblical sources to “disprove” the Holy Eucharist. Sola Scripturist, my quill pen.

Changing horses in mid stream? The worst that can happen is you won’t be defending lies anymore. How bad could that be?

LetsObeyChrist:

You might start with post #281, address those particulars I raised.

If 281 is an actual response to me and not another one of your proofs that you know how to press Ctrl-V, you got it, LetsObeyLetsObeyChrist. If you’ve just blowing out your clipboard again, I’m not going to waste my time, because you can paste 16k WAY faster than I can type a word. And you don’t need to waste any time having integrity that way, either.

LetsObeyChrist:

As I am trying to answer all posts to me and have only just finished replying to post # 146 it will be some time before I respond.

Must take a long time to do all that pasting. You’ll notice the people who respond to you are putting in an honest effort at expression and debate. You’re just filling the server with paste. That’s disingenuous.

LetsObeyChrist:

But if you actually do address what I say and not fictional narrative of your own creation

Fiction? You’re the one who callls yourself LetsObeyChrist. Nice disguise.

Let’s review our positions for fictionality, shall we?

You are a self-styled “Sola Scripturist.”(sic) Whatever that means.
Therefore, you follow the sayings of the man Martin Luther. Oops. So much for following the Bible only and no man’s sayings.
Sola scriptura says only the contents of the Bible are true. You can’t prove that using only the Bible, but I guess putting your fingers in your ears and singing “lalalalalala I can’t hear you lalalalala” loud enough is more “experiential” than admitting you bought lies when it comes to faith.
Sola scriptura is not in the Bible. Anywhere. In any sense at all. Not even in the books Martin Luther threw out. You can’t prove it.

You can’t even imply it using the Bible only.

Satan can’t even prove it, because it’s a lie. All he can get you to do is buy it. So you proudly stick the label “Sola Scripturist” on yourself and preach that Jesus was a Divine trickster.

This is THE ONLY PLACE S.S. leads. I don’t think anything can possibly get more false than Sola Scriptura.

Why do you believe these lies? They profit nothing. You’ve already realized Eucharistic accidents have no effect on substance. ‘Disconnect’ I believe was the word you used. Correctly, I might add. You’re still getting there.

Let’s look at me:
I believe that when Jesus said we must eat his body and drink his blood, that’s exactly what he meant because as the Son Of God, He was materially incapable of the subtle duplicity of purpose you have staunchly accused Him of through all these hundreds of posts.

Regarding eating His Body and drinking His blood, I believe that he meant EXACTLY what He said with no exigetical, hermaneutical, semantic Rube Goldberg machine needed.

Who’s the “Bible Christian” now?

LetsObeyChrist:

It is likely I will respond.

Yeah, with four posts in a row of scripture? What, do you get paid by the word? I can find a Bible myself, thanks, and you did agree to put links in place of paste when you signed up.

 

[jmm08]

LetsObeyChrist:

I’ll take the personal touch of Christ any day over a rite.

We who experience Christ always (He dwells in us) and in our assemblies (He walks among us) know His real presence and do not need to “remember it.”

Jesus said (Matthew 18:19-20): “Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

As Christians when we meet to worship Jesus, He is there. Where is He? He is there. As Roman Catholics, when we have Holy Communion (and He is there) – I think it is not hard at all to believe that He is there as we believe. Especially with the Gospel of John Chapter 6, and with His words in the Last Supper.

LetsObeyChrist: Sometimes when some non-Christian (Joe) has such a big vocal argument over theology, the loud arguments are there because there is a moral issue at hand. Joe goes on and on about how the Virgin Birth is impossible. The real reason that Joe cannot be convinced is this – that if Joe admitted he was wrong, he would need to change his life. Move out of his girlfriends house. And quit smoking grass. If Joe wasn’t living with his girlfriend and smoking pot, then maybe it wouldn’t be so hard for Joe to accept Christ and go to church on Sundays.

If you had to admit that you were wrong, where does that leave you? You might need to join the Roman Catholic Church (or Eastern Orthodox, etc.). And give up the idea that “once saved, always saved”. And you would need to make sure that you are always all right with the Lord. And never want to tell Him to go away for awhile and give you some space to do your own thing.

That is presently where I am (but not the same sins as Joe). I am working on repenting and getting my life right with God. Because I am convinced by John chapter 6 and the words of Christ in the Last Supper. I just never knew that the Protestants all said and were thinking “symbolic”. Believe me, it isn’t a bad place to be in (repenting and working on getting right with God). I haven’t been to RCIA yet. But I’m reading Bishop Sheen and getting back into reading the Bible more.

I live in the greater Washington DC area. We just went back to orange alert. And I’ll probably soon be taking the commuter trains to work each day (and work in a Gov’t building). You know what happened before election day in Madrid Spain. I should want to be right with God. We’ve had so much trouble in this area: anthrax scares, beltway sniper, pentagon (my Baptist Adult Sunday School was in the Pentagon at the time and survived – but I think he got some shell shock).

The easiest-to-win person I ever saw come to Jesus was a man who had been shot. I didn’t know until after he prayed. He had his arm in a sling. And the bullet was too close to his heart to operate. Instead of being in jail or electronically under house arrest (with a leg bracelet), they just sent the guy home. Because the cops and judge knew that if he stepped out of line (even a little bit), that the bullet might dislodge and he would die instantly. No need for a big bail amount in that case.

The worst place to be in is this: thinking like the new “Grace” movement says. That if you pray to Jesus just once and mean it then you are saved (and always will be saved). So you don’t need to worry so much about how you live your life because you are covered by grace. What if that is wrong and the Roman Catholics are right? If you commit a mortal sin, you could burn in hell for eternity.

So you see, that is why I am going on with the Roman Catholics. Because even if they are wrong and the “Grace” Christians are right, I won’t be in the hot town anyway.

So live for Christ. Get your life right. Only if you are without sin, keep throwing stones.

 

[jmm08]

Even if the Roman Catholics are wrong about transubstantiation.

If I was Christ, I’d use Matthew 18:19-20 as a legal excuse to allow it all to be true just as the Roman Catholics believe. And do it for them. Because they love Jesus so much.

Why not? What would be your reason for telling Jesus not to do it?

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jmm08:

The worst place to be in is this: thinking like the new “Grace” movement says. That if you pray to Jesus just once and mean it then you are saved (and always will be saved). So you don’t need to worry so much about how you live your life because you are covered by grace. What if that is wrong and the Roman Catholics are right? If you commit a mortal sin, you could burn in hell for eternity.

So you see, that is why I am going on with the Roman Catholics. Because even if they are wrong and the “Grace” Christians are right, I won’t be in the hot town anyway.

So live for Christ. Get your life right. Only if you are without sin, keep throwing stones.

Although your post is off topic (I was only going to browse the last few post before returning to the posts on page 2), I was struck by your mistaking “eternal security of the believer” (which Christ and His apostles taught) with antinomianism (which Christ and His apostles condemned).

For your conscience sake, along with your investigation of Catholic belief, check out “Lectures in Systematic Theology,” Henry C. Thiessen. He probably addresses many of the issues you have questions about.

As a former Jehovah’s Witness who did not believe in Predestination of believers, until shown it is taught in Scripture, allow me to point out one simple thing, according to Eph 2:6 the elect already are in God’s Kingdom, already sit in heaven. This reality is known to God as He dwells in Eternity (Is 57:15) not contained within spacetime ( 1 Ki 8:27) and He will reveal this to creation in the coming ages.

It Therefore logically follows we WERE saved by God’s grace as (we have yet to die and our sins are still future yet we were not rejected) (=undeserved kindness, already saved) as we NOW sit in heavenly places with Christ Jesus in His Kingdom, even though in spacetime we are still here.

That means God kept His promise spoken through the Prophet Ezekiel that He would deliver us from our sin and cause us to dwell in His promised land.

It all is a work of God, He created us in Christ Jesus to do good works in His name, we did not put ourselves in Christ, we didn’t have the power:

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised *us *up together, and made *us *sit together in the heavenly *places *in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in *His *kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; *it is *the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Ezekiel 36:24-29 24 "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 "Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 "I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

No I am not. I directly question the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when their appearance (or substance) does not change one iota.

Ahhh but the substance DOES change into the Body and Blood of the Lord. You are again ASSUMING your own conclusion.

Why not have the same faith in His Words the Apostles did and BELIEVE Him, even when you can’t see it or understand it. You are trying to use human reasoning , like the pharisees, to understand words that are spirit. You ask the same question they did. “How can this man give us His Flesh to eat?” Can’t you see that? You are still thinking after the flesh.I assume nothing, many proofs have I adduced showing it is incorrect, which of these don’t you agree with?

Rather than do what you accuse me of, discuss my objections to it, there are many posted on this thread.

Pick something of the many proofs against it I posted on this thread and disprove it.

May God grant peace to your house

Al

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

At one … He is generous.Boondoggle. List the Bible Verses that directly support your assertion proving “eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ”

LetsObeyChrist:

Paul does refer to the OT with the caveat … proved by the Bereans:

Spurious. You’re the one who started this thread. Prove your assertion. You haven’t come close.

LetsObeyChrist:

Acts 17:11-12 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Again, way to pat yourself on the back, your holiness. Whatever.

Still, prove the Eucharist is symbolic from the Bible. It was your idea.

LetsObeyChrist:

You misunderstand what sola ONLY scriptura SCRIPTURE

means, “only Scripture” has supreme authority, it is above all human authority.Yes, that is What Martin Luther commanded you to do on pain of eternal damnation and you are following what Luther commanded in Wittenborg instead of what Jesus commanded.

LetsObeyChrist:

Contrary to what you have heard MT 23:2 “Moses Seat” is an illustration of Christs “sola scripturaism” at work.

More false commentary. You’re not proving your assertion, you’re tap dancing instead. What a surprise. Wait, maybe you have an indefensible position. Just because you accuse Christ of duplicity doesn’t mean you don’t know how to spin.

LetsObeyChrist:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Hey, great news! Your Ctr-V key is still working. Unfortunately you’re pasting from a version of the Bible descended from a translation invalidly commissioned by a morally degenerate British Monarch with absolutely no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, even though its first edition contained the full canon of the Bible including the seven books your hero, “Christ-Commander” Martin Luther, threw out because they cramped his personal style.

LetsObeyChrist:

It was the custom of the Jews to sit when expounding scripture, stand when just reading or hearing it, to indicate its authority.

It is the custom of LetsObeyChrist to paste and spin scripture for all, tap dance when defending his accusations that my personal Lord and Saviour is some kind of deadly riddler, and avoid facing the reality that Jesus meant precisely what He said at the Last Supper, to demean HIS authority.

So you’re a “Sola Scripturist”?

LetsObeyChrist:

Whatever these fetched from the Word of God itself was authoritative even though it was spoken by usurpers to Moses seat, Pharisees being laymen had no right to sit in Moses seat.

Their lack of authority

You mean like yours?

LetsObeyChrist:

even when they were obvious hypocrites,

You mean people who say “Jesus insead meant something he never said.”

LetsObeyChrist:

had NO effect upon the authority of Scripture.

You mean all the pasting you can fit in here has had no effect on the incomprehensible truth of Christ’s words at the last supper? You mean even if you are off-the-scale wrong about everything here from your first word onward, Jesus saying “This is my Body” and “This is My Blood,” not to mention the enormous bulk of the Gospel where Jesus not only clarifies, but amplifies, emphasizes, circles, underlines, highlights, illustrates, reiterates and spells out in language simple enough for even ME to understand that “This is my Body” means “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” means “This is my Blood.” ?

That’s what it means?

(continues: and please note, LOC: I didn’t paste reams of other people’s unattributed work, either.)

 

[jmm08]

LetsObeyChrist:

Although your post is off topic (I was only going to browse the last few post before returning to the posts on page 2), I was struck by your mistaking “eternal security of the believer” (which Christ and His apostles taught) with antinomianism (which Christ and His apostles condemned).

For your conscience sake, …

It Therefore logically follows we WERE saved by God’s grace as (we have yet to die and our sins are still future yet we were not rejected) (=undeserved kindness, already saved) as we NOW sit in heavenly places with Christ Jesus in His Kingdom, even though in spacetime we are still here.
…
It all is a work of God, He created us in Christ Jesus to do good works in His name, we did not put ourselves in Christ, we didn’t have the power:

My post wasn’t terribly off topic, but I suppose it might have been right on target.

LetsObeyChrist: Is it my conscience that you worry about or yours?

Do you suppose that since you are already sitting with Christ that you cannot foul it up? If so, if you aren’t sitting up there already then you cannot get there either? I cannot accept a life strategy that has me doing nothing at all because it doesn’t matter (no matter how many Ph.D.'s are behind it). If nothing I do matters, then nothing matters anyway (and it is just up to God).

Instead I can only look at the possibilities where doing something will make a difference. And it is by God’s grace if I am doing something, really Christ must doing it (if it is any good). A logical strategy must be based on this: that what I do matters. And if what I do matters, then it makes a difference.

Rev 22:17: “The Spirit and the bride 11 say, ‘Come.’ Let the hearer say, ‘Come.’ Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.”
This doesn’t take much effort. I just need to come. Holy Water is available to me and to you at the entrance of any Roman Catholic Church (although I think the verse is talking about something even more spiritual). Go ahead and sprinkle some on yourself making the sign of the cross. If you are right, it doesn’t matter. If the Roman Catholics are right, it might just do something for you (make you more inclined to receive the Holy Sacraments). Try it.

You can never win an intellectual argument against somebody who has had an experience (unless you have also had the experience).

The Test
LetsObeyChrist: Go for the experience (go to a Roman Catholic church and sprinkle some holy water on yourself making the sign of a cross on yourself). Go inside and sit through Mass. Pray a little prayer “Lord Jesus Speak to me”. If you are right, you won’t hear anything to change your mind anyway. Last week my local priest had a sermonette (I think RCs call them homilies) about abortion and how life is sacred (see, that wouldn’t have changed your mind – so you have nothing to fear). The weekday Mass takes less than an hour.
Sprinkle yourself with the Holy Water both coming in to the Church and leaving the Church. And then come back and continue your arguments.

If you refuse to sprinkle some Holy Water on yourself, then I think many Roman Catholics will see something that would prove their point of view.

My conscience benefits if I repent and get rid of sin in my life – no matter who is right. I actually think my conscience will be aided by the process of going to confession and making confession and penance a lifelong habit in my future. I feel comfortable knowing that I want to make myself more accountable here before must I face my judge (almighty God). Sure, I don’t get saved by being perfect. If I get saved, it is by the Grace of God and Jesus Christ. And thank you St. Mary and St. Joseph.

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

It was still to be obeyed:

So GET WITH HIS PROGRAM, LetsObeyChrist.

If that is your real name.

Jesus’ point was that Religious hypocrisy is NO EXCUSE to rebel against the Word of God.

Thanks again for quoting infallible biblical interpretation of the Catholic Church.

LetsObeyChrist:

God is God undiminished by men

And Sola Scriptura is Sola Scriptura, undiminished by God, if I buy from LetsObeyChrist.

LetsObeyChrist:

The disciples having been directly taught this by Christ, refuse to obey them who sit in Moses’ seat when they command rebellion against the Word of God:

Oh, I get it. You’re saying I rebel against God every time I do PRECISELY WHAT HE COMMANDED IN THE BIBLE WORD FOR WORD. Way to make sense.

You think that you, by contrast, are obeying God when you and your assembly place the sayings of Martin Luther above Him, and “get together” Sunday morning – if there’s no game on, of course – for, well, whatever the preacher or the something-or-other committe says you should, or whatever you “feel” moved to do instead of following the explicit command of Christ word for word like I do. Do you give Jesus a vote, too? On anything?

LetsObeyChrist:

Acts 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So you’re telling me that by not adding my own personal twist to Scripture like you do, following the sayings of no man, except Martin Luther of course, that I’m disobeying God.

LetsObeyChrist:

The teaching of Sola scriptura is pervasive throughout Scripture, implicitly and explicitly:

Says YOU, not ME. That is YOUR Martin Luther designer protestant doctrine of choice, not mine. You want to talk about a heap of DUNG!

LetsObeyChrist:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,

You’ve spent FOUR PAGES of posts doing nothing but this. Nothing but. You’ve taken scripture and told us Jesus is wrong, but hey how lucky are we that you’re here to straighten Him out.

LetsObeyChrist:

that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

LetsObeyChrist, how can anyone take you seriously when you won’t obey Christ yourself?

May the Blessed Virgin Mary steal your heart for Christ and never give it back to you.