S
shawn38
Guest
Gal 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
Peter wasn’t over Paul as Paul wasn’t over Peter as apostles.
- Status
Peter wasn’t over Paul as Paul wasn’t over Peter as apostles.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I understand what you are saying,but he did lie and that is disingenious. He clearly stated St.Augustine rejected any Roman claims and that is not true at all. On the contrary,Augustine said the exact opposite.
M
mikeledes
Guest
If this were so, then what Jesus said originally makes no sense:
**51… and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." **
If the flesh profits nothing, then that also means that Christ’s death on the Cross profited nothing. The “flesh” that Jesus is referring to in verse John 6:63 is that within humans that rebels against the Spirit.
You are identifying "spirit"or “spiritual” with “symbolic” or “figurative” and that is not necessarily true. The “spiritual” body, for example, that St. Paul refers to is a real body, not a figurative one. The words Jesus spoke are spiritual. Why? Because they are from God. “Spirit” or “spiritual” simply refers to that which is of divine origin, in contrast to that which is of sinful human origin (flesh). His words come from God and hence they are spiritual. The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is spiritual, but it is spiritual in the sense that our resurrected bodies are spiritual. In other words, just as the resurrected body is spiritual and yet real, Christ’s presence is spiritual and yet real.
God Bless,
Michael
D
distracted
Guest
N
Nicea325
Guest
And are you saying it is perfectly okay to lie about someone? I do not accept lies and especially when that person no longer can defend himself.yes but saying You lie just doesn’t do much for most people…
M
mikeledes
Guest
To reinforce the point I made here… that when Christ says His words are spirit he means that His words are of divine and not human origin… here’s another example from Scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:13
13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
We see this contrast earlier in the chapter as well:
**1And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
2For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
4and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. **
What are the spiritual thoughts and words Paul is referring to in verse 13? The above verses make it clear that he is talking about his preaching of the Gospel, of Christ crucified.*Spiritual *thoughts and words are those that come from the Spirit, not the flesh (sin tainted humanity), and does not mean that these words are figurative. For if that were the case, then that would mean that the entire Gospel is figurative and not real. The Gospel is spiritual because it is not the wisdom of men (flesh), but the revelation of God (spirit). Hence, the Gospel message is spiritual and yet it is real, not figurative.
God Bless,
Michael
S
shawn38
Guest
Lets back up a few verses
Jn 6:35 Then 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.
Do you suppose that followers would never become physically thirsty or hungry? No. Christ was satisfying them spiritually.
Jn 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
The death referenced here was a spiritual death as a result of the Law to come which condemned those under it.
Deut 8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna…to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Deut 9:7 Remember this and never forget how you provoked the Lord your God to anger in the desert. From the day you left Egypt until you arrived here, you have been rebellious against the Lord. Deut 9:13 And the Lord said to me, “I have seen this people, and they are a stiff-necked people indeed! 14Let me alone, so that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven. And I will make you into a nation stronger and more numerous than they.” Deut 9:25I lay prostrate before the Lord those forty days and forty nights because the Lord had said he would destroy you. 26I prayed to the Lord and said, “O Sovereign Lord, do not destroy your people, your own inheritance that you redeemed by your great power and brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand
Then the Law was given to them.
In Jn 4:13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
Do you suppose that the woman will never become physically thirsty again? No. Christ was speaking of satisfying her spiritual thirst.
S
shawn38
Guest
The word gives birth (James 1:18), it’s living and active (Heb 4:12), dwells within you (Col 3:16), cleanses you (Eph 5:26), and sustains you (Heb 1:3). Literal food and water tend to the flesh, but the spiritual food and water tend to the spirit and eternal life.
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit.
Paul puts no confidence in the flesh, even to the point of hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
Phil 3:3 we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh
Jude 1:23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
If Christ’s blood was literal physical blood as Catholics suppose (Jn 6:53 …drink his blood…), Christ sinned (Lev 17:14 …You must not eat the blood of any creature…) and was no longer “unblemished” as Heb 9:14 (…offered Himself unblemished to God) states for the New Covenant did not take effect until Christ’s death on the cross (Heb 9:16). Until that point, Christ had not abolished the old covenant (Heb 8:13).
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear
Heb 9:16 In the case of a covenant, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Are you saying the Eucharist is symbolic? Show me the early church writings where they believed the Eucharist was only symbolic?
S
seamusmohr
Guest
- Can’t find out which!*
My contention is quite clear, the Pope has a well attested primacy of place within the Catholic Church, he is the Patriarch of the West!
He has also a primacy of Honour in that he is the Bishop of Old Rome!
These two titles?] were the gifts of the Ecumenical Councils ,Nice and Chalcedon and one other as far as I remember* and as such the Anglican Church accepts the ,‘Primacy’, of the Pope in the Western World. It amounts to ,‘First amongst equals’!
As I remember it, on taking his place as the Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict 16th, placed at least one, possibly both these titles, the gift of the Catholic Church, in abeyance! It was in my opinion a gesture ,well meant, but one which was criticised,[wrongly, in my opinion,] as arrogant and unfeeling!
The Bishops in Africa, repudiated, sacked or expelled two bishops who immediately went to Rome and appealed to the Patriarch there .Rome’s delegate’s attended the regularly held Council of African Bishops at Carthage. [418.] One Roman delegate, a bishop of Potenza quoted a right of appeal to the Bishop of Rome from the Nice Canons! This would make the Africans in the wrong! Alypius, Bishop of Tagaste immediately challenged the Canon as not being in the copies held in Africa?* It was eventually decided to apply to Constantinople for verification, though the Roman delegation opposed this as an affront to the Bishop of Rome! In the meantime the African Bishops allowed the judgments of the Pope to stand whilst the Greek copy of the Nice canons arrived.
When the genuine copy of the canons arrived, there were no recrimination but the case as tried again in the light of the popes offering and the original African judgment was accepted and renewed along with a new canon [cxxv] forbidding all appeals beyond the sea, or to any authority save African Councils and primates, under pain of excommunication throughout Africa; and finally the Carthage Council sent a Synodical letter to Pope Boniface by two of their legates complaining about his conducting in re-enstating Apiarius, complaining about the use of spurious canons and telling the Pope in clear language that nothing would make them tolerate his conduct, or suffer insolence such as they had received at the hand of his legates! One of the signatories to this was S.Augustine!
Another Council at Carthage five years later had a re run of this business with Apiarius, this time he was deposed for immorality.Yet another pope rehabilitated him, sent him back to Carthage along with the same Bishop Faustinus. The papal case collapsed when the recalitrant Bishop confessed to his immoral practices! His degredation was confirmed! Again the long suffering Bishops wrote to the new pope Celestine pointing out afresh that the Canons used were not of Nice origin! That the pope had transgressed himself the Canons of Nicea by interfereing in another province and they could find no authority for his doing so. They then begged him to refrain in the future because of the harm his pride and ambition was doing was doing the Catholic Church.
- It was infact a copy of a Canon of the Council of Sardica, where the Church ,at the request of the Emperor, had granted a vey limited amount of Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome in appeals from one Bishop and another.*
Popes and Patriarchs.M. Welton. Conciliar Press. [Orthodox.]
Petrine Claims. Littledale. Vol1,of 3. 1890. Obtainable on internet!
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Just where did I say that S.Augustine rejected ANY Roman Claims?
If you look at my post to our friend ‘DISTRACTED’ he was definitely a member of a Council that rejected Papal Claims to interfere.[At least according to the sources I have previously given to you!] You have not queried them, and they are well accepted by both Anglican and Orthodox scholars!
" But I know that I have afterwards in very many places so expounded the Lord’s saying,“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church”, as to be understood of Him who Peter confessed when he said,“Thou art the Christ , the Son of the living God.”…For it was not said to him, “Thou art the Rock (petra) , but,Thou art Peter,” (petrus). But Christ was the Rock, whom Simon confessing, as the whole Church confesses Him. But of these two meanings let the reader choose the more probable. (Augustine’s Retractiones… 1:21. P.L.32:618.)
In both the above he is taking a stand against Roman Claims or priviliges ,at least to my mind!
M
mikeledes
Guest
That doesn’t contradict what I’ve stated before regarding the use the words “spirit” and “flesh” in Scripture. Spiritual is not “symbolic.” It simply means that which is of God or revealed by God. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is not the same thing as eating earthly food and water. We are receiving the God-Man, the glorified Christ. So consuming the Body and Blood of Christ is not the same thing as consuming the body and blood of merely earthly creatures. Consequently, that law does not apply to the reception of the glorified Christ in the Eucharist. Moreover, God knows what He intended by the law. as the sovereign Lawgiver, and hence can always reveal exceptions to that law.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
And it is understood that he is not speaking of the hunger and thirst of the body, but the hunger and thirst of the soul. That’s why no one challenged Him or questioned Him on that particular point. But when Christ is challenged or questioned, He or the evangelist explains what He specifically meant. He does not do that in John 6.
The woman at the well perfectly illustrates the point I just made above. In the verses prior to v. 13, Jesus talks about water and thirst and the woman thinks that he is taking about that particular well. Jesus explains to the woman in verse 13 what He meant. In other words, whenever Jesus is challenged or questioned about something He has said, He consistently explains what He meant. He does not do that in John 6 regarding His Flesh and His Blood. And what Jesus says in John 6 is reaffirmed later by St. Paul:
1 Corinthians 10:16
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
To illustrate my point that the consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ is an exception to that law, I give another example of an exception from the Old Testament.
Leviticus 20:21 states:
21’If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless.
This was the sin that King Herod committed and John the Baptist publicly denounced.
But then we also read in Deuteronomy 25:4-8
"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7"But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.'
This is called a Levirate marriage. Is God contradicting Himself or promiting sin? No! God knows what He intended by the law He revealed in Leviticus and later a reveals an exception to the law revealed in Leviticus 20:21. Therefore, since we know that Christ, being the God-Man, can never sin, then we also know that what He has revealed regarding the consumption of His Body and His Blood is an exception to that law. That law never intended to include the Body and Blood of Christ, just as the law revealed in Leviticus 20:21 never intended to include the situation mentioned in Deuteronomy.
God bless,
Michael
B
brkn1
Guest
Christ was given a body of flesh which most definitely was human, which you have denied here.
Christ being the God-Man does not make Christ any less human in His makeup. Christ often called Himself the Son of Man to identify Himself as one of us, which was necessary for Him to be the promised Mediator between man and God.
To say that you only receive “the glorified Christ in the Eucharist” is to also deny the Catholic claim of the Eucharist being the “re-presentation” of the original sacrifice of Christ. Christ was not in His glorified body until He rose from the dead.
His crucified body of humiliation was physically human. A glorified body could not be crucified nor could it suffer.
R
Radical
Guest
Hello Michael, I read your bit in the Groups section entitled Why John’s and Jesus’s habit of explaining things proves that John 6 must be interpreted literally and thought that you did a pretty good job of it. I note that you are using the same argument in this thread and for what it is worth, I will tell you what holes I see in your argument.
IMHO there is a glaring inconsistency in what you say. You say:
mikeledes:
You also disregard those same things when you make this argument:
I see the situation similar to this: Picture, that instead of requiring the eating of his flesh that day, Jesus required his followers to drink a pint of Hydrochloric acid in order to receive eternal life. I interpret that requirement figuratively. You on the other hand, claim that you interpret it literally, but then when it comes to the act of drinking the acid, you mix a pint of that acid slowly with a base and produce salt water. You then drink the salt water and claim that you have literally followed Christ’s command. From there you say that Christ couldn’t have been talking figuratively b/c he doesn’t offer that clarification, but you ignore that Christ also failed to explain that before you drink the acid you are to mix it with a base.
I realize the analogy isn’t exact, but I don’t think your Eucharist flesh eating is any more literal than the salt water/acid drinking. The alleged real bodily presence is like no other presence known to man. The Eucharistic eating, is therefore, totally different from any other sort of eating known to man. You say that Jesus “consistently explains what He meant”. Well then, show me in John 6 where Jesus explained that he was talking about an entirely unknown manner of eating whereby one eats the accidents of the bread, whilst in reality, one is consuming the substance of his flesh. If his failure to explain that he was speaking figuratively is somehow fatal to a figurative interpretation of John 6, then why isn’t his failure to explain that he was speaking “transubstantially” somehow fatal to an interpretation of John 6 that involves a fulfillment via transubstantiation?
IMHO there is a glaring inconsistency in what you say. You say:
and:
Your second statement is inconsistent with the first. Jesus very graphically described the requirement to gnaw his flesh, yet as you have noted, consuming the body and blood of Christ is not the same thing as consuming the body and blood of merely earthly creatures. No gnawing of flesh is involved in your Eucharist and as such, you ** do not literally** gnaw a Christ’s flesh. Therefore, you do not literally obey his requirement. It seems that you totally disregard Christ’s use of “gnawing” and ignore the fact that the eating “it is not the same thing” in order to claim Christ was talking literally and in order to distinguish your form of consumption from cannibalism…
You also disregard those same things when you make this argument:
Even if we assumed that there is a real bodily presence in your Eucharist, then just as Christ didn’t explain that he was speaking figuratively that day, he also didn’t explain that he was speaking “transubstantially” that day. There is no way that any one in his audience that day could have possibly understood that Jesus was talking about a manner of eating flesh that involved eating something that looked, smelt, felt and tasted like bread, but that under the accidents of the bread was the substance of his entire glorified body.
I see the situation similar to this: Picture, that instead of requiring the eating of his flesh that day, Jesus required his followers to drink a pint of Hydrochloric acid in order to receive eternal life. I interpret that requirement figuratively. You on the other hand, claim that you interpret it literally, but then when it comes to the act of drinking the acid, you mix a pint of that acid slowly with a base and produce salt water. You then drink the salt water and claim that you have literally followed Christ’s command. From there you say that Christ couldn’t have been talking figuratively b/c he doesn’t offer that clarification, but you ignore that Christ also failed to explain that before you drink the acid you are to mix it with a base.
I realize the analogy isn’t exact, but I don’t think your Eucharist flesh eating is any more literal than the salt water/acid drinking. The alleged real bodily presence is like no other presence known to man. The Eucharistic eating, is therefore, totally different from any other sort of eating known to man. You say that Jesus “consistently explains what He meant”. Well then, show me in John 6 where Jesus explained that he was talking about an entirely unknown manner of eating whereby one eats the accidents of the bread, whilst in reality, one is consuming the substance of his flesh. If his failure to explain that he was speaking figuratively is somehow fatal to a figurative interpretation of John 6, then why isn’t his failure to explain that he was speaking “transubstantially” somehow fatal to an interpretation of John 6 that involves a fulfillment via transubstantiation?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Just where did I say that S.Augustine rejected ANY Roman Claims?
Read what you said:
*S.Cyprian of Carthage for instance and S. Firmilion and **S.Augustine **amongst all the early Fathers rejected Rome’s claims.As I said yestreen, read the Councils of Carthage from Cyprian to Augustine! *
ALL? That is a totally false claim and plainly disingenious.Precisely why I rebuked your claim and gave the exact quotes from Cyprian and Augustine. I can give plenty of more from either one.
If you look at my post to our friend ‘DISTRACTED’ he was definitely a member of a Council that rejected Papal Claims to interfere.[At least according to the sources I have previously given to you!] You have not queried them, and they are well accepted by both Anglican and Orthodox scholars!
Well with all due respect,your sources (Anglicans and Orthodoxs) are going to be very biased.Geeee…I wonder why? Nonetheless, that is not going to change any historical evidence. And why? Because I have given Eastern and Western church fathers take on the papacy. Does not matter what Anglicans or Orthodoxs write or think,the PRIMARY sources confirm otherwise. No need to query them ,I have plenty sources containing all the church fathers writings.Their own writings from their own works,not a second hand source.
BTW: I notice how you completely ignore all my references from the Cyprian and Augustine’s very own mouths about the papacy and Peter’s successors. You can ignore it, reject it, turn the blind eye,but that alone is not going to change historical evidence. I can post scores and scores of more references,but apparently you refuse to accept something confirmed long ago.
M
mikeledes
Guest
I have never denied that Jesus was not human. That’s an interpretation you are imposing on what I said. A glorified body, brkn, does not cease being human. Jesus continues to be the God-Man, continues having a human nature, even after the Resurrection. And when we are resurrected, we also will continue being humans. Glorified humans, but humans nonetheless. And you objection based on our understanding of the Mass is based on a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Mass is. But that’s the subject of another thread.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Hello Radical. I’ll answer your response in parts. First of all, there is no inconsistency. There is a consumption of Christ in the Eucharist. But what I meant was that the Eucharist is not exactly the same as mere earthly food. Earthly food is for the nourishment of our bodies, while the Eucharist is for the nourishment of our souls. The Eucharist is supernatutal food, something that cannot be said about our breakfast or dinner.
To be continued…
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
The problem is this. If “flesh and blood” are really metaphors, then Jesus or the evangelist would have explained what those metaphors meant. That is the consistent pattern we see in the Gospel of John. If with other far less controversial statements Jesus or John provided an explanation, then why didn’t they provide one here, the only instance where disciples walked away because of something Jesus said? There are things that Jesus said during His public ministry that His disciples did not fully understand until after Christ resurrected:
John 2:20-22
20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
Here not only do we have John explain a controversial statement made by Jesus, but He also tells us that the disciples fully understood what He said after He was raised from the dead. Another example…
John 12:16
**16These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him. **
Several times Jesus talks about His passion, death, and resurrection… all of which are literal realities… and they didn’t understand. The point is that it doesn’t matter whether the disciples understood that he was speaking of a “transubstantial” presence or not. The fact that they didn’t fully understand does not mean He’s not speaking of a substantial presence in the Eucharist, just as the fact that the apostle’s failure to fully comprehend His statements regarding His literal death and resurrection does not mean that these were not literal events. Jesus gave them the essence of what transubstantiation means. They accepted what Jesus taught because they believed He came from the Father, not necessarily because they fully understood or liked what He said. But if He were using figurative language, then Jesus or the evangelist would have explained what that language meant… and I cited many examples where they do explain figurative language, especially when it causes controversy. When there is no explanation, that means that there is no need for one. The plain words speak for themselves.
God bless,
Michael**
- Status