Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[ncgolf]

As I read the back and forth between literal or symbolic language in interpreting John 6, I can see why so many protestant sects emerge. A man has the choice to either hear the Truth or believe his own truth. Similar to witnesses at an accident or crime each person can see different things from the same event. Without the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church and the Magisterial we too would be lost. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church for over 2,000 years and no amount of verbal wordplay can ever change the main difference between Catholics and non-Catholics.

Catholics can receive, daily if they choose the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Not just symbolically but literally. He said so Himself.

The weight of evidence written by people like Aquinas far outstrip the mental gymnastics people go through to disprove the actual presence of our Lord in such ordinary elements as bread and wine.

 

[RNRobert]

Les Richardson:

One of the aspects of evangelical protestantism is a tendency towards gnosticism where the body and soul are separated; body bad, soul good. The beauty of the original Christianity that we practice in the Catholic Church is that it flows from the original Jewish old covenant understanding of humanity as body and soul by the intention of the creator. When we recite the Creed we say we believe in the “resurrection of the body” and that is a critical understanding, not only that Christ rose from the dead which makes our faith possible in the first place, but that we will be raised from the dead in the last day. In other words we are incomplete as human beings without the joining of body and soul, that initial creation that God makes in the woman’s womb each time a baby is conceived.

There is a wholeness to the Catholic faith that is not there in most evangelical protestantism, whereby physicality and corporeal reality have a place. So much flows from that, including our clear understanding from day one of the real presence, the power of binding and loosing given to the apostles and their successors, the clear doctrines on contraception and abortion, the use of sacramentals. All of these are a recognition that Jesus Christ incarnated, took on physicality, became one of us body and soul, and used physical aids throughout His ministry, such as spitting in the dust and making mud to put on the blind man’s eyes.

I agree. I think C.S. Lewis said it best in his book The Screwtape Letters that man was a hybrid, neither pure spirit like the angels or pure matter like animals, and that what we did with one affected the other.

 

[Servant1]

“It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.”

Actually, it is not elementary. Rather, it is an elementary logical fallacy of confusing necessary and sufficient causes.
Turning on my garden hose results in getting my lawn wet. Rain results in getting my lawn wet. Therefore, Turning on garden hose = Rain.
By the way, I eat because I believe.

David - you’re right on the money. This eisogesis (opposite of exegesis) uses what is a primary example of the false syllogism. Another example is: The sun gives off feathers. Feathers are light. Therefore the sun gives off feathers. Simply phrasing something so it fits a seemingly logical formulas does not make it true. God tells us many a time, doesn’t he, that his wisdom is not our wisdom? He even tells us that his folly is better than our wisdom. So what if it doesn’t “make sense” to us?

Seems this example of denying the real, true, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is yet another example of an attempt for man’s wisdom to triumph over God’s.

Good post, David.

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

It is interesting to note this chapter essentially repeats the same “act” three times:

Arrange the following verse groups side by side and you will observe something similar to an event caught in a “time loop,” where (as Trekkies will know) things can repeat themselves slightly different each time yet the end is the same:

John 6:26-37

John 6:38-46

John 6:47-67

It then becomes clear these “disciples” were antagonistic to Christ and 1)He repeats what scandalized them to separate the wheat from the chaff 2)then takes away their excuse for rejecting Him by clearly rejecting their literalist interpretation 3)explains why He did not expect they would heed His rebuttal.

I think this is a very interesting point. I have read through this thread and have observed that you like to place “believe” in place of “eat” from the first loop into the second. It sure seems to make sense linguistically to do so. However, you unfortunately are making the two sections mean the same thing. Thereby nullifying one of them. What need to say it twice with different words just to impose an interpretation on it so that it’s the same as saying it once?

I believe that Jesus is actually leading his disciples (and others whose god is their belly) along a path.

“Believe”…grumble. Verses 35-47
Kick it up a notch:“Eat”…GRUMBLE Verses 48-59
Kick it up more:Challenge the closest disciples…those who cannot handle it leave.

Anyway it seems very clear that in verse 64, Jesus is indeed talking about those that are of the spirit and those who are of the flesh. He’s saying the words are spirit and truth. He’s implying that only those who are called “given to him by the Father” in verse 66] (i.e. those who are of the spirit) will understand or “get it”.

 

[martino]

SteveG:

Folks, stop arguing with this nonsense. The heart of the problem is that this is his personal interpretation (prohibited in 2 Peter 1:20), and is based on the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Force LetsObeyChrist to first prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture before accepting his personal opinion based on a heretical notion.

By arguing this foolishness, you have ceded the ground to him on the underlying basis of how he makes his argument (Sola Scriptura), and are playing his ‘game’. Do not cede such, as it is utterly invalid.

BINGO!

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

After removing the ad hominem I discovered you had nothing to say.

Thanks for trying.

No, my friend, it is you who spews out empty words by changing words in scripture to suit your own beliefs and than imposing them on others. Your arrogance does not make you right. You are fooling no one.

But thanks for trying.

 

[mlaforme]

Just a simple thought here. The question wasn’t whether or not, it was how. Just as how can a man be born again. How can this man give us his flesh? Baptism is the “how” Eucharist is the “how”

 

[1962Missal]

Little Mary:

No, my friend, it is you who spews out empty words by changing words in scripture to suit your own beliefs and than imposing them on others. Your arrogance does not make you right. You are fooling no one.

But thanks for trying.

Don’t let LOC get to you. He really doesn’t bite. But he’ll pedant you senseless if you let him.

Justin

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

Anyone notice how you failied to address any issue?

So we are to be absurd literalists? Follow that advice here and insist Christ is speaking about bread. If you won’t follow your own advice I guess we know what we can do with it:

Matthew 16:5-13 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, *It is *because we have taken no bread. 8 *Which *when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake *it *not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade *them *not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

This is a great example of Jesus clarifying what He meant so as not to be misunderstood. Compared to when He spoke about His Precious Body and Blood, which He made very clear - and allowed those who did not believe to walk away.

Thank you for driving home MY point.:tiphat:

 

[Little_Mary]

1962Missal:

Don’t let LOC get to you. He really doesn’t bite. But he’ll pedant you senseless if you let him.

Justin

He may not bite but he sure barks. I admit I’ve allowed his arrogance, lack of respect, and his misinformed opinions to get to me. Just so you know, I’ve about had enough of him.

Thanks,
LM

 

[Captain_Napalm]

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.

Sorry if someone already answered this, I didn’t have time to read all the replies:

The reference to “flesh vs. spirit” here is in the same context as John 3:6:

What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Nicodemus didn’t understand what being “born again” meant. He was thinking too banaly. In baptism, we are born again by water and the Holy Spirit, we don’t re-enter the womb, obviously. But, Christ told him to think more spiritually, not more figuratively. He told him that we MUST be born again of water and Spirit. Obviously very real and very important, but not a physical rebirth. Being born of water and spirit is not a metaphor, but a real sacramental act using real physical water and the real Holy Spirit.

The Jews at Capernaum in chapter 6 thought of “eat my flesh” in the same way that Nicodemus thought of “born again.” Christ told them to think more spiritually. Does the word “spirit” necessitate a figurative connotation? Is not the Holy Spirit a real being? Are not our souls real things? The Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity; it is His entire being, physically and spiritually, not just gossamer bits of flesh and blood. Unlike Nicodemus, who accepted Christ’s words on Baptism, the Jews at Capernaum did not accept His words.

They clearly took His words literally, otherwise they would have no reason to be offended. Yet, if they took Him literally, but He really meant it figuratively, why did He let them leave? Why not correct their misunderstanding, if that is all it was? Yet, scripture does not say that they misunderstood. Verse 64 reads:

*Jesus knew from the beginning the ones *who would not believe ** and the one who would betray him.

It was very clearly a lack of faith. With Nicodemus, it was a lack of understanding, and Jesus corrected him. With the Jews at Capernaum, it was a lack of faith, and he repeated His teaching without moderation. They rejected Him because they had no faith. The Apostles themselves probably had no idea what Christ meant when He spoke those words either. Yet, in the words of Peter in Verses 68-69:

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

His was a response of faith. We don’t have to understand God to accept Him; that is the very nature of faith. As John 20:29 says:

Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.

They accepted what He taught, even if they didn’t understand what they meant at the time.

If Christ indeed meant what He said in John 6 figuratively, not only did He do a poor job of conveying such, but also He would be guilty of a lie. If it was a simple matter of misunderstanding, Jesus would be guilty of intentionally misleading them, since He knew in advance who would not understand. That is as bad as lying to them, and that is something of which Chirst could not be guilty. It was not a matter of misunderstanding, it was a matter of faith (or the lack thereof). And God would not compell them to believe, because He gave us free will. That is why He let them go. He meant it literally and they took it literally. It is the only interpretation that makes sense.

 

[Captain_Napalm]

Transubstantiation could not have happened as Christ Himself describes the contents of the cup as wine after its consecration:

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

30 And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.

If that passage unambiguously proves that transubstantiation did not occur, how do you explain Luke 22:17-20?

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

The words of consecration occur after the “fruit of the vine.” It is the exact opposite of Matthew 26. How can this be? Can the Bible contradict itself? Not on a matter of faith. Obviously, the phrase “fruit of the vine” is a metaphor. Christ called Himself the vine in John 15:1:

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.

Is our Lord and Savior a flexible herbaceous stem? Or is such talk a metaphor?

The phrase “fruit of the vine” is not relevant to transubstantiation. If it were, then Matthew and Luke have a contradiction on a matter of faith. The Bible is error-free on such matters, so unless you would like to throw out the entire Gospel of Luke, you must accept that the “fruit of the vine” reference is metaphoric and has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Besides, the traditional Passover meal involved the blessing and passing around of several cups of wine. There is nothing to indicate that the “fruit of the vine” was in reference to the Cup of the New Covenant.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

SteveG:

Folks, stop arguing with this nonsense. The heart of the problem is that this is his personal interpretation (prohibited in 2 Peter 1:20), and is based on the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Force LetsObeyChrist to first prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture before accepting his personal opinion based on a heretical notion.

By arguing this foolishness, you have ceded the ground to him on the underlying basis of how he makes his argument (Sola Scriptura), and are playing his ‘game’. Do not cede such, as it is utterly invalid.

To add to the BINGO! already posted on this one, may I add a couple of items from the Church Fathers?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, ca 110:

They [those with heterodox beliefs] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.(Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 6,2)

Notice that even in the year 110 it was considered heterodox , and revisionist, to deny the Real Presence. Some would argue the doctrine came into being at the Council of Trent. No, not quite. It was just restated, and given a term.

Trent wasn’t close to the first time the doctrine was set down, either.

From St. Justin Martyr, ca 150:

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; … as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of the incarnated Jesus. (First Apology)

I am always struck by those who claim sola scripture, and ignore the earliest interpretations of the scripture, to deny the Real Presence. Actually, I’m even being a bit fast and loose with the term “interpretation,” since these “interpretations” predate the assembly of the books of the New Testament. There was the apostolic teaching; the teaching written down; the assembly of the New Testament; and the turning away from the teaching at the reformation, in that order.

Once again, we have a demonstration that the fullness of the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and the rest is a truncated version. Fullness is GOOD! :bounce:

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:
"It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating =(is a symbol for) Believing (as both result in life to the doer)."An invalid argument is still and invalid argument. The logical form of your argument is:

X results in Y ; Z results in Y ; Therefore X = (is a symbol for) Z .

If you read the argument syllogistically, then YOU did not distribute the middle term in either premise (“A” propositions, to use standard Aristotelian form, do not distribute their predicates–check any logic text book). Ok, You busted me.

I failed to take the time to construct a valid syllogism however the conclusion remains sound as there is only ONE ACTION (verb) that will result in Eternal life, that is BELIEVING in Christ.

Eating flesh cannot do it, only the Spirit gives life in response to Believing in Christ, eating His flesh is of no avail:

NAB John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

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.

Therefore when Christ says His words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” He must be saying they not literal, they refer to an act that results in the hearer receiving the Spirit and life.

He said His words ARE spirit and life, hence, not flesh.

That means the outer covering, the flesh of His words, are not what quickens, the spirit of them, what they figuratively refer to, makes possible the Spirit quicken one into eternal life, grant them Spirit and life.

As only believing in Christ results in the Spirit quickening unto Eternal life, for Christ’s words "“eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” to be “spirit and life” to us they must be figures of speech meaning “believe in Christ so the Spirit can quicken unto Eternal life.”

So a valid syllogism would be as follows:

Only the ACT of believing in Christ results in life.

“Eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” words that refer to an ACT that results in life.

Therefore

The ACT of “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to the ACT of believing in Christ.

Now the middle term is distributed throughout.

 

[Captain_Napalm]

The parsimonous interpretation of “eating (flesh; bread; ME)… drinking blood…” in John 6:26ff is provided by the context.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Sorry if I seem to be monopolizing the board today, but there is just so much wrong with the symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper, I feel compelled to fire a few more volleys…

Actually, the context is quite literal. The first few instances of “eat” in John 6 are translations of the word “phago” from the Greek, which means “to eat.” It is quite literal. All we need to do is look back to John 6:5:

When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?”

The original Greek word used in this passage for “to eat” was “phago.” It is the root of the word “phagocytosis” which is a scientific word used to describe the way a white blood cell or an amoeba eats; it literally wraps itself around and engulfs its food. It is real literal eating. In fact, throughout the Gospel of John, as well as most of the Bible, there are no figurative uses of “phago.”

The use of the more graphic word “trogo” begins in verse 52, after the Jews quarreled about how they were to eat His flesh. It was to emphasize the literal nature of the teaching.

Yet, there are few figurative uses for “pahgo” in other passages of the Bible (unfortunately, I do not remember the verses off hand); however, in each instance where it is used figuratively, it is in the sense of an insult. The Jews were familiar with this figurative use. To “eat one’s flesh” in a figurative sense was to hurt, slander, or otherwise not be nice to someone. A figurative use for eating the flesh of Christ would mean that, to have eternal life, His disciples would have to insult and slander Him. That doesn’t fit with the context of narrative in John 6. It should be quite clear that the use of the verb “eat” is literal here.

As for verse 29, Christ was telling them that, to do the will of God, they must believe in the one God sent, i.e. Jesus. Immediately following that pronouncement, Christ told them that He was the bread of life. Verse 29 is to prepare them for a difficult lesson; he was about to tell them something that might shock them. He was saying to them, basically, “you have to believe what I tell you.” Then He told them.

By the way, why would Jesus go through all of the trouble of metaphorizing “believe in me” as “eat my flesh” when He had just gotten through telling them they had to believe in Him in the first place? He had already told them to “believe in the one he sent;” why make this big confusing metaphor where “eat my flesh” really means “believe in me” when he had just told them that to believe in Him was to do the work of God?

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

Folks, stop arguing with this nonsense. The heart of the problem is that this is his personal interpretation (prohibited in 2 Peter 1:20), and is based on the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Force LetsObeyChrist to first prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture before accepting his personal opinion based on a heretical notion.

By arguing this foolishness, you have ceded the ground to him on the underlying basis of how he makes his argument (Sola Scriptura), and are playing his ‘game’. Do not cede such, as it is utterly invalid.

This should be in another thread, oh well.

Sola scriptura is apostolic doctrine, I thought everyone knew that!

Even children can know the sacred scriptures and be made wise unto salvation, vs 15, clearly the Bible is both formally and materially sufficient!

If the scriptures cannot make someone competent and fully equipped for every good work then they don’t belong to God, vs 17.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. –New American Bible

Such as the good work of knowing the right doctrine to be saved, given wisdom for salvation!, vers 15.

Observe Paul’s argument, the Scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation because that is why God inspired them, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The Bible is unclear only to those who don’t belong to God:

Matthew 13:11-16 11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.

None can see Scripture truth when the traditions of men are laid upon the text:

Isa 29:10 For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.

11 And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” 12 And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.” 13 And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote;-RSV, CE

 

[Captain_Napalm]

Mt 16:6-12 parallels the disciples misunderstanding symbolic speech as literal.

In Matthew 16:6-12, Jesus used bread metaphorically, but His disciples took it literally. There was a misunderstanding. This is obvious.

So, what does Christ do? He corrects them. He tells them directly that He was speaking metaphorically:

How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread?

He told them that He was using bread as a metaphor. But, in John 6, he does no such thing. He repeats His teaching over and over and over, never once saying anything about a metaphoric or symbolic use of the bread. Obviously, He meant it literally.

Matthew 16:6-12 only proves that Jesus corrected people when they misunderstood Him. Therefore, John 6 was not a matter of misunderstanding, but of lack of faith.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

OOPS :nope: Problem.

You quote writers for whom Holy Scripture meant only what we know today as the Old Testament. There was no New Testament when they were writing.

So to be consistent, references should be only to the Old Testament, in which case, even the crucifixion and resurrection have no warrant in Holy Scripture.

Remember your history: Apostolic teaching (which, following Jesus, brings the Old Testament into the Christian faith);then those teachings written down; then the New Testament.

But you haven’t answered the question posed earlier: What is your basis for saying that Holy Scripture is authoritative? No one is saying here that it isn’t, but what is your basis for saying it has any authority at all? Surely you do not present it as authoritative but are unable to say WHY it is authoritative?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Captain Napalm:

In Matthew 16:6-12, Jesus used bread metaphorically, but His disciples took it literally. There was a misunderstanding. This is obvious.

So, what does Christ do? He corrects them. He tells them directly that He was speaking metaphorically:

How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread?

He told them that He was using bread as a metaphor. But, in John 6, he does no such thing. He repeats His teaching over and over and over, never once saying anything about a metaphoric or symbolic use of the bread. Obviously, He meant it literally.

Matthew 16:6-12 only proves that Jesus corrected people when they misunderstood Him. Therefore, John 6 was not a matter of misunderstanding, but of lack of faith.Christ did correct their interpreting eating literal flesh profits, gives eternal life.

He took the time to explain His words are spirit and life, not flesh.

That only the Spirit gives life, not flesh which is of no avail.

Then Jesus explains why they cannot understand His words properly, God has not enabled them to believe.

John 6:63-65 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

It is odd any would insist upon the interpretation of those NOT enabled by God to know what Christ said:

John 8:43-47 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Can any of you charge me with sin? If I am telling the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God."

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Gerry Hunter:

OOPS :nope: Problem.

You quote writers for whom Holy Scripture meant only what we know today as the Old Testament. There was no New Testament when they were writing.

So to be consistent, references should be only to the Old Testament, in which case, even the crucifixion and resurrection have no warrant in Holy Scripture.

Remember your history: Apostolic teaching (which, following Jesus, brings the Old Testament into the Christian faith);then those teachings written down; then the New Testament.

But you haven’t answered the question posed earlier: What is your basis for saying that Holy Scripture is authoritative? No one is saying here that it isn’t, but what is your basis for saying it has any authority at all? Surely you do not present it as authoritative but are unable to say WHY it is authoritative?

Blessings,

Gerry

While you are right Paul referred to the OT and not the NT, you are wrong the OT lacks all that is necessary to be made wise unto salvation.

No lesser luminary than the apostle Paul said it can!

Who are you to say Paul is wrong.

Here is a historical example proving Paul is right:

KJV Acts 17:11 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.

These only heeded the OT and when they saw Christ in the OT they were “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” just as Paul said.

Christ is in the OT and He is all we need to be saved:

KJV Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These *are *the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and *in *the prophets, and *in *the psalms, concerning me.

While the OT may not have enough information in it to please Catholic apologists (who refuse to be satisfied), it certainly has enough in it for Paul who says it renders the man of God completely equipped for EVERY good work:

2 Timothy 3:15 - 4:1 15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 Every scripture inspired of God *is *also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. 17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.