How many times somethings is mentioned

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
Mt 5:30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Mt 18:8 "If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.
Mr 9:43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched

Dokimas, I read them in my Bible also,do you have a protestant Bible so you can read what it is saying.
What is your church doing to stop this SA,
Click to expand...
 
Bill_Pick said:
If it is mentioned three times or more, it is certainly to be taken literally.
In John chapter 6, Jesus emphasized nine times, “This IS My Body”.
He also said it in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19. And if that isn’t enough, St. Paul said it again in 1Corinthians 11:24.

“THIS IS MY BODY” falls not only under this rule, but also under the “Law of First Mention”, doesn’t it, starting with Matthew 26:26?

“THIS IS MY BODY” also must follow the “Senses of the Bible”. These verses are literal. There is nothing said in these chapters to indicate any other sense.

How can anyone deny that Jesus meant what He said, when He said it so many times?
How can anyone break three basic rules of Bible interpretation, by saying “It is only a Symbol, or a representation of His Body”? Cathloic treas chest
Click to expand...
If that was the case then you would know that after consecration the Bread is the Body and the Wine is the Blood and never the twain shall meet!
 
Dokimas said:
Bill Pick;6436251:
BTW, you haven’t commented on my three verses about cutting the hand off. You said if there were at least 3 mentions of a thing, it sould be taken literal.
Click to expand...
DOc, If you can read english it was very plain, you posted somthing so I paste it and send it to you…DoKimas ONe question do you read all your post.
You post with 3 bible verse and I ask are they in prostestants Bible,Doc can not make it any plainer
My spelling is very bad but you may need help with you english.
Click to expand...
 
BrianH said:
:D:o:D
Oh come on people…you can’t blame me for seeing the irony of this!!
Click to expand...
Yes, it caught my eye, you might say. :eek: By the way, I believe the attitude of the Catholic Church would be that you have truth and God certainly pours out His grace upon you. We believe that we have the “fullness of truth” but certainly consider you a brother in Christ. I don’t want to diminish the importance to Catholics of the Real Presence, but that isn’t a reason not to be charitable.

God bless.
 
Bill_Pick said:
Go to your roam and shut the doar and read all of John 6,and see what our Lord said and then tell why the jews got up and walk away
Click to expand...
Well Bill, following your advice I had a close look at John 6 to see why certain members of Jesus’s audience left. I note:

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body. Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. ** As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.**
b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body. That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. ** As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.**
c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine. ** As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.**

What then was the “hard teaching” that they heard? I suppose (like Augustine) one could believe that they took Jesus to be requiring a cannibalistic act from them….such is possible b/c that is where a literal understanding (of his very graphic words) would lead. If that is right, then those that left rejected cannibalism (and the teacher of it).

I don’t know that any of those people would have thought that Jesus was requiring a cannibalistic act from them. Jesus was profoundly moral and cannibalism is profoundly immoral. I suspect many would have concluded that Jesus couldn’t have intended to be taken literally, but w/o further explanation from him, they wouldn’t have known what to make of his words. Those words wouldn’t have made sense and would have been offensive. If that is right, then those that left rejected (what to them seemed to be) a nonsensical and offensive teaching (and the perceived teacher of it).

The text doesn’t say why Jesus made no effort to clarify his meaning, but it makes it very clear that none left who had been actually called by the Father. Christ could have called out, “Wait I am only speaking metaphorically” or “Wait I am not speaking of cannibalism or of your teeth actually chewing my flesh”, but he didn’t, b/c it seems, that he didn’t care to.
 
Radical said:
Well Bill, following your advice I had a close look at John 6 to see why certain members of Jesus’s audience left. I note:

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body. Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. ** As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.**
b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body. That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. ** As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.**
c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine. ** As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.**

What then was the “hard teaching” that they heard? I suppose (like Augustine) one could believe that they took Jesus to be requiring a cannibalistic act from them….such is possible b/c that is where a literal understanding (of his very graphic words) would lead. If that is right, then those that left rejected cannibalism (and the teacher of it).

I don’t know that any of those people would have thought that Jesus was requiring a cannibalistic act from them. Jesus was profoundly moral and cannibalism is profoundly immoral. I suspect many would have concluded that Jesus couldn’t have intended to be taken literally, but w/o further explanation from him, they wouldn’t have known what to make of his words. Those words wouldn’t have made sense and would have been offensive. If that is right, then those that left rejected (what to them seemed to be) a nonsensical and offensive teaching (and the perceived teacher of it).

The text doesn’t say why Jesus made no effort to clarify his meaning, but it makes it very clear that none left who had been actually called by the Father. Christ could have called out, “Wait I am only speaking metaphorically” or “Wait I am not speaking of cannibalism or of your teeth actually chewing my flesh”, but he didn’t, b/c it seems, that he didn’t care to.
Click to expand...
Thank You for your opinion
 
Bill_Pick said:
DOc, If you can read english it was very plain, you posted somthing so I paste it and send it to you…DoKimas ONe question do you read all your post.
You post with 3 bible verse and I ask are they in prostestants Bible,Doc can not make it any plainer
My spelling is very bad but you may need help with you english.
Click to expand...

Bill, those verses were from the New King James Version.​

I’m still waiting to hear from you as to whether or not you think Jesus intended you to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin? It is mentioned 3 times and you know what you said about ‘3 times’ mention, don’t you?
 
Dokimas said:

Bill, those verses were from the New King James Version.​

I’m still waiting to hear from you as to whether or not you think Jesus intended you to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin? It is mentioned 3 times and you know what you said about ‘3 times’ mention, don’t you?
Click to expand...
If you are reading the right bible its 9 not 3 Iwas reading it again and Yes

I think it may be symbolic just like He said In John 6 This is my boddy,this is my blood
 
Bill_Pick said:
If you are reading the right bible its 9 not 3 Iwas reading it again and Yes

I think it may be symbolic just like He said In John 6 This is my boddy,this is my blood
Click to expand...
Reading your OP I thought it was you that mention 3 times.

I agree Jesus was speaking symbolic in John 6 as I think Jesus spoke symbolically in the verses I quoted to you.
 
Dokimas said:
Reading your OP I thought it was you that mention 3 times.

I agree Jesus was speaking symbolic in John 6 as I think Jesus spoke symbolically in the verses I quoted to you.
Click to expand...
NO I do not think Jesus was speaking symbolic in Chapter 6 of John He was ever plain in what He said its in all three gosple and in 1Cor 11
 
Dokimas said:
Reading your OP I thought it was you that mention 3 times.

I agree Jesus was speaking symbolic in John 6 as I think Jesus spoke symbolically in the verses I quoted to you.
Click to expand...
It was to say it is all 3 gospel
 
Dokimas said:
Could you make up my mind, please?
Click to expand...
make up my mind about what,if you are talking about symblic in John 6 You know that I,m a cotholic and that was a joke,and a good prostestants like you can see that
 
Bill_Pick said:
make up my mind about what,if you are talking about symblic in John 6 You know that I,m a cotholic and that was a joke,and a good prostestants like you can see that
Click to expand...
Reread your post. It seems you said John 6 was symbolic just like the ‘cutting of hands’ ones were symbolic. BTW, if you think the ‘hands’ one is symbolic, why isn’t the bread and wine symbolic? 3 times, remember.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top