How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Araninski,

I am not surprised at all - simply ask you to read an entire Chapter (as opposed to one mis-understood verse) and to read for comprehension, and you simply refuse. I can understand you not wanting to move forward on this - comfort is so much easier. But, one day, when you are feeling up to it - try the entire 6th Chapter of John and then reduce it to 100 words or less and see how different it looks contrasted with the mistaken idea you have presented with this one-verse-says-it-all approalch.

Truly, misreading what is written is of no value at all.

God bless

John 6
Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand
"1Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), 2and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick. 3Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

5When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” 6He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

7Philip answered him, “Eight months’ wages[a] would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”

8Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up, 9"Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?"

10Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. 11Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.

12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.

14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
Jesus Walks on the Water
16When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19When they had rowed three or three and a half miles,** they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20But he said to them, “It is I; don’t be afraid.” 21Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

22The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. 23Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus.
Jesus the Bread of Life
25When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

26Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."**

 

[Araninski]

34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.(THE WORDS HE SPOKEN ARE SPIRIT**)** 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69**We believe **and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)"

 

[Araninski]

If the so called Eucharist, were really to turn into blood and body of Jesus Christ physically and you were so right then Christians who don’t believe in transubstantiation would not be able to do the works of God. Eating the Bread of Life, Jesus, is accepting Him, believe in Him, doing what He did. The Jews ate the bread from Heaven, given by God himself and they weren’t capable of BELIEVING IN HIM, they knew He exists but weren’t capable of following His ways(this is believing, following Him, not knowing He exists, even Satan knows He exists). I read the passage and summarize it, you just didn’t pay attention, I think you only read it like for 2 minutes…If you read my post you will find its a summary, but you don’t acknowledge that in the OT they did exactly the same thing, just that it wasn’t done yet, they only practiced it until Jesus came, read the OT analyze it, they key is in there, you ignore everything that has to do with the OT because its not Jesus? the OT talks about Jesus since the very start, you read John 6 and that’s it.

Originally Posted by Roman_Catholic

Wait, you are not referring to Christ’s flesh as being “weak” are you? Christ’s blood and flesh was/is anything but weak:

Quote:
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:28
Quote:
he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Heb. 9-12
Quote:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. Eph. 1: 7
God bless

All flesh is weak.You know what made Jesus weak? Do you know why He was tempted in all ways in the desert? (but always overcame thanks to the faith He had in the One who sent Him). What made Jesus strong was His faith not His flesh, the flesh is weak.

All of what you posted made reference to what Jesus is, He is the Passover Lamb, with His flesh and blood which never was contaminated or unclean, He was able to sacrifice Himself like it was written of Him in the Scriptures, a perfect sacrifice to end them all, that doesn’t mean it [His flesh] wasn’t weak.

Hebrews 5:7-12
"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence, Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him**,being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek**.About this we have much to say, and** it is hard to explain**, since you have become dull of hearing**.For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food.**

Paul was telling them they had to be teachers, because they didn’t learned the basic principles of the Oracles of God, which are found in the OT. Paul was an expert, He at the age of 20 he needed to know all of the Pentateuch, without reading it. This is why Jesus choose him, because He was an expert in the Scriptures, which were not the NT, all the epistles including Hebrews were made from ideas from the OT.

Jesus flesh and blood saved the world but not because they were powerful in fact His flesh was weak but because He never sinned, and His flesh and blood were pure, this is why He takes away the sin from whoever believes in Him, He did what no man could.

All the years a High priest (after the Order of Melchizedek) sacrificed a clean lamb for the sins of all the world, in the Atonement Day (or Yom Kippur), but in this Atonement Day Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures sacrificing Himself as the pure Lamb of God.

God loves you!

 

[Araninski]

By the way if the Eucharist were really , physically the body and blood of Jesus it would not spoil, but try and do it, if you leave a wafer which has “transsubstantiated” by an “ordained priest”, it will still spoil, “do not seek food which spoils, but food which endures to eternal life”.

Now you will say they have to create a doctrine of the after-Eucharist, which says "if a “transsubstantiated” wafer isn’t eaten 2 hours after being “transsubstantiated” it would stop being the body and blood of Christ.

Seriously I respect what you believe, I know you believe the Catholic Church cannot err in doctrine and morals, if you cannot proof with scriptures this doctrine, either you are not well catechized or the belief is wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

Why do people assume the things of the Spirit are symbolical…

When we go and it the Eucharist, we are accepting spiritually Jesus blood and body.

And how exactly do you spiritually accept Jesus’s Body and Blood?

Flesh counts for nothing, if the Eucharist is just something physical then is nothing. Spiritual NOT equal to symbolical.

Jesus said THE flesh counts for nothing. But over several verses He said His flesh counted for a lot! You posted the entire chapter a few posts up. Pay particular attention to 48 - 61.

The breaking of the bread and drinking wine, is what He referred to what is His body and blood. Abraham did it with the Priest of Melchizedek , what the Jews did for so long after so much years, that is His blood and body. That act is the body and blood, that thing we do in remembrance of Him is His blood and body not the bread and the wine.

Quite wrong. In the synoptic Gospels He said of the bread and wine : This is my body, this is my blood. Nothing symbolic there. When God says something is, something IS.

 

[benedictus2]

By the way if the Eucharist were really , physically the body and blood of Jesus it would not spoil,

Yes, yes, yes. That is exactly what the Eucharistic miracles are all about and there are so many of them.

There is the one in Lanciano, Orvietto, etc,etc/

Read all about them here.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

Now you will say they have to create a doctrine of the after-Eucharist, which says "if a “transsubstantiated” wafer isn’t eaten 2 hours after being “transsubstantiated” it would stop being the body and blood of Christ.

I don’t know where you got such hogwash but it is hogwash.

It remains the Body and Blood of Christ whether eaten in the next two hours or not.

Seriously I respect what you believe, I know you believe the Catholic Church cannot err in doctrine and morals, if you cannot proof with scriptures this doctrine, either you are not well catechized or the belief is wrong.

And I know you believe that you cannot err in your belief according to the infallible Pope Araninski.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

All flesh is weak.You know what made Jesus weak?

I figured that is what you meant but I thought I would try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So I am curious are there any other Protestants that believe Christ’s flesh and blood was “weak”? His flesh being “weak” did His death and the spilling of His blood not profit us?

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

All flesh is weak.You know what made Jesus weak? Do you know why He was tempted in all ways in the desert? (but always overcame thanks to the faith He had in the One who sent Him). What made Jesus strong was His faith not His flesh, the flesh is weak.

Jesus said when we eat His Flesh and drink His blood we have eternal life. How can a weak flesh give us Eternal life? Are you saying that Jesus is contradicting himself so he does not really know that which he speaks of.

All of what you posted made reference to what Jesus is, He is the Passover Lamb, with His flesh and blood which never was contaminated or unclean, He was able to sacrifice Himself like it was written of Him in the Scriptures, a perfect sacrifice to end them all, that doesn’t mean it [His flesh] wasn’t weak.

And the passover Lamb is meant to be eaten!

And the Body and Blood of Jesus that we eat is HIS GLORIFIED BODY, t**he one that has triumphed over death **so very, very far from weak.

 

[schaick]

*You have still to declare who and what is your authority.

We have free will and you have made your choice.

Cinette*

Back in post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6919639&postcount=393

Agreeing on simple basics, which becomes interpretation using GOD’s Word as authority [Scripture must be harmonious], …

The belief that the Eucharist is symbolic is a novelty and that is a fact of history you simply cannot accept. I challenge you to provide me the overhwhelming writings from the early church fathers and other Christians teaching the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic?

BTW:If the Eucharist was taught from the get-go as only symbolic,then there should exist ample writings rebuking the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a heresy or usurpation. I’ll await your sources.

You are missing the point of my comments. I never said this is what I believe-the symbolic only approach. I do believe in the Real Presence.

I am saying that even though all have the same interpretation the application is different for each person.

We are not discussing which application is correct. You would have to ask someone that believes in symbolic presence only for their sources.

I have been in various ecumenical Bible study groups with Protestants as well as Catholics.

It was my observation that most Protestants in such groups don’t require an absolute and true interpretation of most verses. It’s not so much a matter of different denominations. It’s a certain mindset that more and more Catholics seem to have now.

Yes we require a true interpretation- there is only one, but non-catholics Christians don’t need all the specifics laid out for them. There are mysteries better left unexplained least they have an improper explanation, label, etc.

Here's the way it goes. So, three members of the study group give three different interpretations of a verse. Maybe "thou shalt not kill". A Mennonite might believe that this requires him to be a conscientious objector in war, serve in the medical corps but not carry a gun. A Catholic might argue the 'just war' theory. Someone else might say that war in our modern time has become just too murderous and that unless we are attacked we cannot go to war - for example, we were wrong to invade Iraq. Etc.

All see the order to “thou shalt not kill”, there is only one interpretation- DO NOT KILL is very straight forward. It is how people apply that rule to their lives that differs.

 Or, let's see, what about abortion - as murder? A Catholic might say that under no conditions is abortion justified. It always is murder. Most liberal Protestants would make exceptions - rape, save life of mother, some others perhaps. A fundamentalist Protestant might agree with the Catholic. Another Protestant might say the whole matter is private, the mother (and father) together with a doctor make the decision, certainly if an abortion is within the first trimester. Etc.

Again “thou shalt not kill” very straight forward. Each group is applying this information differently.

Protestants, I have found, are quick to say: "Fine. We don't agree. Let's agree to disagree." Protestants usually put much more emphasis on individual interpretation without a dogmatic edge. Well, I think those ecumenical groups have attracted more liberal (mainline) Protestants than staunch evangelicals. Evangelicals are nearer the Catholic position on many moral issues, despite major differences in doctrine.

      Enough for now. Protestants I know don't seem that concerned about having one interpretation of scripture. They seem pleased to entertain various ideas with animated discussion but without argument. My guess is that more evangelical Protestants are more likely to adhere to a stricter set of doctrines, which is why we have so many small evangelical denominations. High-church Anglicans, Missouri-Synold Lutherans and a variety of others are apt to be more theologically conservative, too.

  God bless all of his children of every color, creed and country. May religion become a bridge and bnot a barrier..

I would say the majority of Christians see it as simply different expressions of the one true faith.

 

[schaick]

Well then, let’s take concrete examples.

• Eucharist. Is it real or merely symbolic.
• Confession. Can the priests forgive or not.
• Mary. Must we venerate her or not.
• Pope. Is infallibility true or not.

How do we know in any of these instances which one is correct?

OK we have discussed -Eucharist. Is it real or merely symbolic.

Still don’t believe any of you are understanding my point.

We discussed this way back at the beginning: Confession. Can the priests forgive or not.

The next one: Mary. Must we venerate her or not

I don’t see how interpretation plays a role here.

I see this as simply an application of the knowledge/fact that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Saviour. The best example of an obediant servant of GOD. Someone that we should model our lives after.

 

[shaky]

Back in post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6919639&postcount=393

Agreeing on simple basics, which becomes interpretation using GOD’s Word as authority [Scripture must be harmonious], …

You are missing the point of my comments. I never said this is what I believe-the symbolic only approach. I do believe in the Real Presence.

I am saying that even though all have the same interpretation the application is different for each person.

We are not discussing which application is correct. You would have to ask someone that believes in symbolic presence only for their sources.

Yes we require a true interpretation- there is only one, but non-catholics Christians don’t need all the specifics laid out for them. There are mysteries better left unexplained least they have an improper explanation, label, etc.

All see the order to “thou shalt not kill”, there is only one interpretation- DO NOT KILL is very straight forward. It is how people apply that rule to their lives that differs.

Again “thou shalt not kill” very straight forward. Each group is applying this information differently.

I would say the majority of Christians see it as simply different expressions of the one true faith.

HI Schaick

Where it says {Thou shalt not Kill} in the 10 commandments. The word ‘‘Kill’’ was the wrong word that was put in the KJV. The word should have been ‘‘Murder’’ It should have said {Thou shall not Murder} I looked it up in the Hebrew bible. The Hebrew word.
what about the person that was put to death for collecting fire wood on the sabbath.

Jehovah witnesses said to me i was not allowed to kill anybody under any circumstances
even if you want to stop somebody killing your children in front of you.
They think if a madman is walking around killing people. Its wrong for the Police to shoot him dead to stop him.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

You know, complaining about being misunderstood on two major topics and then launching out into third makes precious little sense to me. If you want to be understood then you need to clarify the points that are not understood.

Several of us have given you multiple material verses from Scripture that the Eucharist is REAL - yet you cling to this “…the flesh profits nothing…” bit like Christ is saying, “Everything I previously told you I am not saying it isn’t true”. Nowhere did Christ say that His Flesh profits nothing - He just told us if we don’t eat It we will die. This is the way Christ has chosen for us to have both spiritual and physical nourishment.

Several of us have told you about the Risen Christ coming to the Apostles, breathing on them and telling them to receive the Holy Spirit and giving them the Power of God to forgive (or not forgive) the sins of men. This is the way Christ has chosen for us to be forgiven from sin.

May I suggest that instead of beginning a new topic, that you ‘go back’ and plow this ‘same field’ - not again using the same approach - but actually locking onto where the communications problems lie and then addressing them. Let me give you a suggestion: read all of John 6. Then summarize this chapter in 100 words or less so that the major message of this chapter is communicated. Then post your summary and we can discuss it.

God bless

OK we have discussed -Eucharist. Is it real or merely symbolic.

Still don’t believe any of you are understanding my point.

We discussed this way back at the beginning: Confession. Can the priests forgive or not.

The next one: Mary. Must we venerate her or not

I don’t see how interpretation plays a role here.

I see this as simply an application of the knowledge/fact that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Saviour. The best example of an obediant servant of GOD. Someone that we should model our lives after.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Araninski,

There is some major confusion here - and understanding flesh being weak is justo one of them. Maybe this will help to clairify it…

If the so called Eucharist, were really to turn into blood and body of Jesus Christ physically and you were so right then Christians who don’t believe in transubstantiation would not be able to do the works of God.

God is not limited in any way - He is perfectly able to work through anyone or anything so that His Divine Will is accomplished. Take a look at Balaam who was truly a bad apple - and his talking donkey - should give everyone the idea that God’s message will not be stopped (Numbers 22-25). And, for a NT reference we can go to Matt 7:22 where there are those, “… who will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons…” and these people are going to Hell! Bottom line: do not think that the works of God can not be done by anyone - the challenge to all of us involves actively cooperating with God’s Grace.

Eating the Bread of Life, Jesus, is accepting Him, believe in Him, doing what He did. The Jews ate the bread from Heaven, given by God himself and they weren’t capable of BELIEVING IN HIM, they knew He exists but weren’t capable of following His ways(this is believing, following Him, not knowing He exists, even Satan knows He exists).

I found this section a little confusing, Araninski, so maybe you would clarify it for me…

There is some major confusion here - and understanding flesh being weak is justo one of them. Maybe this will help to clairify it…

Accepting Christ, believing in Christ, doing what He wants us to do are all elements of following Christ. Now, when you say, “The Jews ate the bread from Heaven…” and they did not believe in Him, are you referring to manna or to the reference Christ is giving in John 6. You seem to be quoting John 6:31-34 but, if this is the case the Jews never ate the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ - they were repulsed at the very idea (John 6:60) and walked away from Him. Now, the Hebrews were sustained on manna and quail - but, I don’t understand what, if any connection, you are making much less your conclusion.

I read the passage and summarize it, you just didn’t pay attention, I think you only read it like for 2 minutes…

Now, Araninski, just because people do not agree with you does not mean they did not read what you posted.

All flesh is weak.You know what made Jesus weak? Do you know why He was tempted in all ways in the desert? (but always overcame thanks to the faith He had in the One who sent Him). What made Jesus strong was His faith not His flesh, the flesh is weak.

This is truly an important issue, Araninski, Christ is both True God and true man. As man, he was born, suffered, was hungry and thirsty, cried, was persecuted by the Jews, tortured and killed by the Romans and then rose from the dead. As True God He could neither deceive or be deceived. Jesus tells us that (John 6:49-60) He is True Food and we are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have life. The Jews understood what He said and rejected it - not to dissimilar to what you are doing… and claimed this can not be as they left Him. The manna that was given to the Hebrews was a prototype for The Eucharist - with God feeding His People.

All of what you posted made reference to what Jesus is, He is the Passover Lamb, with His flesh and blood which never was contaminated or unclean, He was able to sacrifice Himself like it was written of Him in the Scriptures, a perfect sacrifice to end them all, that doesn’t mean it [His flesh] wasn’t weak.

Here is where we look at ‘weak flesh’ for its meaning. All human effort (flesh) is nothing when it comes to pleasing God. It is only when our wills are aligned with the Will of God that our actions reflect the Love of God through the works that we do. We can not sit on our hands while people are hungry, thirsty, and naked and say, “I’m saved because of my faith!” Matt 25 has some particularly damning verses about this approach.

Christ is offering us His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity in The Eucharist - He is offering His All to us. To focus on Christ as One crying out in agony and conclude He had ‘weak flesh’ is to really miss the point of what He did at the Last Supper. Today, the Glorified Christ is present throughtout the Church - and in a very special way in The Eucharist. Just read what is written - He is not offering us Something that will weaken us or be of no use to us - He is offering us life itself.

That’s the message - and there are those, like Peter, who believe and say, “…You have the words of eternal life…” and those like the Jews who walk away murmuring about “…this is a hard saying…”. So, what camp do you want to be counted in?

God bless

 

[onenow1]

Back in post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6919639&postcount=393

Agreeing on simple basics, which becomes interpretation using GOD’s Word as authority [Scripture must be harmonious], …

Hi,

1Timothy 3: 15, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to BEHAVE in the HOUSEHOLD of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF TRUTH.

Ephesians 1: 22-23, and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Problem: Scripture says the Church is the standard of truth not the bible, much controversy here.

Undeniably schaick all the ecclesial cummunities, in one way or another have cut off most[not all], of their ties to the one true church.

I believe it was St.Agustine that said it as did St.Paul, if you cut your off finger does your soul go with the finger, of course not, it stays with the body.

Martin Luther said this>“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

By this time Luther realized that he had opened the door to error and he was powerless to close it.He had released the genie and now found that the genie had grown too large to be forced back into the bottle.

Isn’t this what happened during the reformation? A whole lot of folks became their own interpreters and look at us now even agreeing on basics, becomes bothersome because of personal opinion.

God Bless

PS. Hope my ranting is not to bothersome.

 

[Nicea325]

Back in post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6919639&postcount=393

Agreeing on simple basics, which becomes interpretation using GOD’s Word as authority [Scripture must be harmonious], …

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
The belief that the Eucharist is symbolic is a novelty and that is a fact of history you simply cannot accept. I challenge you to provide me the overhwhelming writings from the early church fathers and other Christians teaching the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic?

 

[onenow1]

schaick;6932800:

Back in post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6919639&postcount=393

Agreeing on simple basics, which becomes interpretation using GOD’s Word as authority [Scripture must be harmonious], …

And guess what? I have asked for proof of a symbolic Eucharist and have yet to read anything on such a novelty.QUOTE]

:thumbsup:Nicea

He who takes, “The flesh; profits nothing” (meaning the flesh of Jesus), as an excuse for denying the “True Presence”, has denied the incarnation and humanity of Jesus Christ." It is interesting that those who take John Chapter six as being figurative, also take this one verse by itself and call it literal, and all the while calling all of the other verses around it figurative, or symbolic.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by benedictus2

And how exactly do you spiritually accept Jesus’s Body and Blood?

Jesus said THE flesh counts for nothing. But over several verses He said His flesh counted for a lot! You posted the entire chapter a few posts up. Pay particular attention to 48 - 61.

Quite wrong. In the synoptic Gospels He said of the bread and wine : This is my body, this is my blood. Nothing symbolic there. When God says something is, something IS.

Surrendering to Him, and following Him.

Judas ate the Eucharist and still betrayed Him the reality is the Eucharist is something we do in remembrance of Him, because this is a sign of our covenant with Him, and participating in it, means we accept Him (not always though) , and He knows our hearts He knows if we are just merely eating bread and wine, or really eating from Him. Eating from Him spiritually is what counts

The things of the spirit are symbolical? No. Understand it the spirit is more real than your flesh itself.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by benedictus2

Yes, yes, yes. That is exactly what the Eucharistic miracles are all about and there are so many of them.

There is the one in Lanciano, Orvietto, etc,etc/

Read all about them here.

therealpresence.org/eucha…r/engl_mir.htm

I don’t know where you got such hogwash but it is hogwash.

It remains the Body and Blood of Christ whether eaten in the next two hours or not.

And I know you believe that you cannot err in your belief according to the infallible Pope Araninski.

Ok so in theory if a wafer is “transsubstantiated” and you leave it on a cup for 5 years it won’t spoil?

I just said either you can’t explain well your believes or the belief itself is wrong, and please don’t ever call me pope again. I do not claim I am infallible.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by Roman_Catholic

I figured that is what you meant but I thought I would try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So I am curious are there any other Protestants that believe Christ’s flesh and blood was “weak”? His flesh being “weak” did His death and the spilling of His blood not profit us?

God bless

Seriously are you kidding me, read your bible PLEASE.

2 Corinthians 12:9
“But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”

His power is made PERFECT IN WEAKNESS.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by benedictus2

Jesus said when we eat His Flesh and drink His blood we have eternal life. How can a weak flesh give us Eternal life? Are you saying that Jesus is contradicting himself so he does not really know that which he speaks of.

And the passover Lamb is meant to be eaten!

And the Body and Blood of Jesus that we eat is HIS GLORIFIED BODY, the one that has triumphed over death so very, very far from weak.

How can a flesh give us Eternal Life? I don’t know, but I trust in God, He knows how, and that is the reason He is so great and awesome God, He has no barriers. He has no need in showing His majesty, He is so humble, being so mighty, Praise the Great God, Halleluyah!

“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”