Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

[Lampo]

You know there is no list. Some books were still being written.

Yes I do know that. So how does that jive with your comment/belief?:

Originally Posted by **Old Scholar **View Post
But once a tradition begins to involve faith and morals, then it must be found in Scripture or it is false.

 

[Old_Scholar]

That’s a little derogatory isn’t it? Are you as quick to apologize as I was? Here is what you said in case your forgot:

That statement doesn’t seem very truthful given what you admitted.

I could have been more explicit. They are my friends and I believe them to be Romanists. That is what I call Roman Catholics and I didn’t believe what I said would indicate that they thought themselves as Romanists—although some of them may. If the way I said that offended you, then I apologize. It was just an expression.

I’ll have to quit now…they’re taking me back to my cell…Later!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I will attempt to explain this one more time and it is done in order to give all views and not to try and change anyone’s mind. It is what I believe and I hope everyone receives it as that.

I appreciate your time. But I find your explanation tortuous. As you said we must not read things in the Bible that are not there, and unfortunately, you have read much into it in order to satisfy your end. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (to a certain extent) all taught the Real Presence, though in heretical terms.
I am posting this so that you understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist are quite different from your understanding. I hope you read the below with an open heart, and not as an attack on your belief, but rather as correction to incorrect understanding, and a fuller explanation of the the Eucharist than your tradition provides.

It had always been taught that when the Messiah came, He would outdo Moses when his people received manna from heaven. Jesus had told them: John 6:27 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

His body and blood are spiritual food in that they feed our spirit. The Manna is the foreshadowing of the Eucharist. If you feed on Jesus you will not hunger or thirst.

Then they asked what must they do in verse 28. Jesus then tells them: *“The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent.” *(John 6:29)

But he does not say ALONE, he also says to love your enemy IN HIS NAME.

He did not say anything about “eating” or “drinking”, only believing.

, no he says it later on 6:52-58

Because of the miraculous sign they had been given in the desert, the manna, they asked for this bread because they did not understand what Jesus was trying to tell them. He told them He was the true bread out of heaven. John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33) “For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

It should be obvious to all that Jesus is not referring to physical bread but spiritual bread.

No, it is obvious that Jesus was referring to his physical self as being spiritual food…

If you eat of the “spiritual” bread you will not be hungry again.

I did not see this in the passage.

Here Jesus is defining the “eating” of Himself as “He who comes to me” and the drinking of Himself as *“he who believes in me.” *

Sorry, it is obvious that Jesus REAL body and REAL blood are the spiritual food.

This should define the entire metaphor as being symbolic. There are other places where Jesus refers to the eating and drinking also and is symbolic. Read Matthew 5:6 *“Blessed are those who hunger for righteousness, for they will be filled.” *

But the his disciples did not leave him, nor did he have to repeat himself because the saying was hard.

This tells us that if we “believe” in Jesus, our spiritual hunger will be satisfied.

Then you should believe Jesus when he says we must feed on his body and drink his blood.

You won’t satisfy your physical hunger with the Eucharist and it can’t satisfy your spiritual hunger either. It is the living bread that is required and that is the Lord Himself.

Catholic Church does not teach the Eucharist would satisfy our physical hunger. You are confusing food that feeds the spirit with food that is spiritual. The Lord himself, who comes to us in the Eucharist, yes! Our spiritual food and drink.

John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

This entire chapter(John 6) should be read thoroughly if you want to know the truth. Even after Christ had told them they did not understand.

Yes, the entire Gospel. Which includes the part where many stopped following him because his teaching on the body and blood were too hard to accept. If it were spiritual bread, why was it so hard to understand?

Just as the manna rained down from heaven, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. Real bread does not come down from heaven but is grown in the earth. Jesus had to be speaking of spiritual bread. The analogy is clear, Jesus is the spiritual bread from heaven that gives spiritual (eternal) life. Physical bread gives physical life. Spiritual bread gives spiritual life.

But Jesus was the WORD INCARNATE, he was not a Spiritual life on earth!!! You are sounding a little Gnostic to me.

Look at how Jesus summarized it: John 6:49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50) "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51) “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

You keep quoting passages where Jesus is telling us His flesh is the bread we must eat in order to liver forever.

If you believe you must actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, during the Eucharist, then problems arise. Over and over again, Jesus tells us that eternal life comes from “believing” in Him. We are to “eat” jesus only in a spiritual sense.

Jesus never said we must “spiritually eat” his body.

Eating is not a spiritual act, but believing is.

Never disputed this.

Did Jesus tell the man on the cross he had to “eat” His body and drink His blood? He told Him he would be with Him in paradise. He was given eternal life without doing either.

Jesus had not died yet, so he couldn’t have eaten his body and blood.

It was the “believing” that saved him.

This does not rule out the fact that now that we know all the other things Jesus taught must be done as well. Many other places he says other things AS WELL, yes we must believe, but we must also practice the beatitudes, love, be humble, feed the poor, be baptized, etc.

James 4:17
So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.

Another problem is that if we were truly drinking Jesus’ blood we would be sinning by doing so. Still another is that Jesus is sacrificed at every mass when there was only one sacrifice and that was on the cross.

You do not understand the mass. Christ was sacrificed ONCE for ALL. Jesus is outside of space and time, so his sacrifice is ever present. The infinite is beyond our humans capacity of understanding.

Jesus again tells us by establishing the metaphor he would use later. *“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to yo are spirit and they are life.” *John 6:63. He promises spiritual nourishment to all who come to Him while He is telling those who seek physical benefits from Him that it is in vain.

AGAIN, his REAL body is our spiritual food. We are nourishing our spiritual bodies not our physical bodies, with his body.

Jesus said He was the light of the world. “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12. Was He composed of fire?

He also said he was the gate. “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” John 10:7

He said: *“I am the good shepherd."

“I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener.”*

Yes he did. Beautiful allegories.

He said He would give the woman at the well “living water.” What did He mean by that? Spiritual truth of course.

YOUR interpretation. Water refers to Baptism, not to the blood he was about to shed.

Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but 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.” John 4:13-14

In Baptism we are born again, into his body eternal.

Augustine (Faustis 20.18, 20): Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

YES! No more animal sacrifice. Jesus was the ultimate last sacrifice. Commemorating is participating. We participate in his Sacrifice, just as the Jews had to eat the Lamb at the Passover. Jesus had said he would not drink of the fruit of the vine until he was in the Kingdom with his father. The fourth cup of the Passover meal was not drunk in the upper room as it should have been at a Passover meal, but on the Cross, and then Jesus said, “it is finished.” That is the Kingdom of God is now on Earth.

If you are a Roman Catholic, I do not list all this in order to discourage your faith or even to question your belief. The communion is very significant to all Christians. It is a special time when we celebrate the sacrifice Jesus gave in order to allow us to come into the presence of God as holy people who are cleansed by the blood of the New Covenant.

It is our faith that is important; I just want every Christian to learn all they can about Christ and be better able to follow Him and what all He taught. I believe these forums provide us an opportunity to learn all we can and we cannot do that without dialog.

[SIGN]Amen[/SIGN]

Yes, and I have found CAF to be the most open to respectful dialogue of many opposing ideas, including those against the CC. Thank you for coming here and explaining your view.

 

[Lampo]

I could have been more explicit. They are my friends and I believe them to be Romanists. That is what I call Roman Catholics and I didn’t believe what I said would indicate that they thought themselves as Romanists—although some of them may. If the way I said that offended you, then I apologize. It was just an expression.

I’ll have to quit now…they’re taking me back to my cell…Later!

Apology accepted. I find it hard to believe that you didn’t intend for that to be derogatory.

 

[Lampo]

snip

I’m impressed qui est ce. That was quite a response to OS.

 

[BRB]

So you agree it is a spiritual thing???

Sure Eucharist is spiritual !! But, also the supernatural body of Christ as well. Christ wants us to receive ALL of Him.

Why would we be asked to eat the hosts … if we were not receiving the substance of Christ ?

Why didn’t Christ just say … “ponder in your minds about my passion … and your thoughts/prayers will be sufficient”.

The OT Hebrews had to eat the roasted lambs, etc … to make the sacrifice efficacious to them. Christ in NT. fullfills the OT. … again our prayers alone are not complete w/o the celebration of passover meal / Mass.

 

[BRB]

AGAIN, his REAL body is our spiritual food. We are nourishing our spiritual bodies not our physical bodies, with his body. .

Very good response to O.S. on point by point basis.

However, regarding the above statement. Paul clearly believed the Eucharist provided physical benefits to Christians … or physical harm to them if not considered in proper faith.

The mind / body interactions are a scientific fact. Psychology / Sociology behavioral sciences are replete with testimony to mind / body effects on our mental & physical healths.

Clearly our physical bodies are tremendously influenced by spiritual healing.

 

[sodak]

Why would you believe something so important without proof? Does your teaching authority tell you where they get their ideas? Can they show you where it came from?

I thought not!

I can prove all my beliefs with written Scripture.

Yes! They do indeed have tons of evidence. I don’t know, however, if either the Church, or the Bible, can be proved.

You might be able to prove your beliefs using Scripture, but you’ve left out the big part - prove that Scripture is inspired by God. That is the question, now, isn’t it?

So far, the Catholic Church has shown me the ONLY good evidence as to why I should take the Bible seriously. When a lot of my Protestant friends quote verses to me, I ask them so what? Why should I believe the Bible? They stutter and mumble and stomp away. Now, of course, I do believe in the Bible. But I won’t let anyone use it in an argument as a source unless they can convince me as to why it’s a reliable source.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m impressed qui est ce. That was quite a response to OS.

Always quite a compliment, coming from you! Have I learned a lot since I started here?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Very good response to O.S. on point by point basis.

However, regarding the above statement. Paul clearly believed the Eucharist provided physical benefits to Christians … or physical harm to them if not considered in proper faith.

The mind / body interactions are a scientific fact. Psychology / Sociology behavioral sciences are replete with testimony to mind / body effects on our mental & physical healths.

Clearly our physical bodies are tremendously influenced by spiritual healing.

Quantum Physics and the black hole.

In the end a mystery and a leap of faith.

Thanks for the correction, we’re here to help one another in our faith journey. :grouphug:

 

[mark_a]

Not that I agree with him, but I sure wish I had Old Scholar’s persistance. There are 200 plus posts on this thread and he is still going at it pretty much single handedly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not that I agree with him, but I sure wish I had Old Scholar’s persistance. There are 200 plus posts on this thread and he is still going at it pretty much single handedly.

You do have a point. My only problem is WHAT IS HIS PROBLEM???
Having said that
whew
It makes for interesting debate WHY IS HE HERE? The reverse would not be tolerated on a Protestant forum.

 

[adstrinity]

There are 200 plus posts on this thread and he is still going at it pretty much single handedly.

Yes, but, he’s not really answering all the questions being posed at him, is he?

 

[elvisman]

Yes, but, he’s not really answering all the questions being posed at him, is he?

He RAREly - if ever - answers mine.
**He’s a “hit and run” antagonist. There are several of them on this board. **
They always seem willing to attack but never have any good or well-thought-out responses.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old “Scholar” -
**As for **John 5:39 - read the entire story in context.

Jesus was rebuking the Jews for searching the scriptures - NOT because they didn’t contain truth. BUT because they thought they had life because of them. They depended on them and the prophets and not in him, who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
Context, context, CONTEXT . . .

I don’t know how you can say that. Christ says He will build His church on the faith that Peter has shown. There is nothing else to read into that.

Your early church leaders believed that it was the faith of Peter that Christ isaid He would build upon. Christ is the cornerstone of the church, not Peter.
This is the problem with Sola Scriptura adherents. You pick verses but refuse to take ALL of the scriptures in context. What do you do with Matt. 18:15-19? Just in case you don’t remember - in it, Jesus is giving ALL authority to the Church.

I anxiously await your response.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old “Scholar” -
**As for **John 5:39 - read the entire story in context.

Jesus was rebuking the Jews for searching the scriptures - NOT because they didn’t contain truth. BUT because they thought they had life because of them. They depended on them and the prophets and not in him, who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
Context, context, CONTEXT . . .

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura adherents. You pick verses but refuse to take ALL of the scriptures in context. What do you do with Matt. 18:15-19? Just in case you don’t remember - in it, Jesus is giving ALL authority to the Church.

I anxiously await your response.

Jesus was indeed rebuking the Jews. But it was not for searching the Scriptures; it was for none belief. In the proper context of those verses, continue on down to the following:

John 5:46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47) “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

They would not believe what Moses wrote, and they would not believe God. This was the proper context and it was not the searching of the Scriptures that got them in trouble, it was the non-belief.

 

[Old_Scholar]

And yet he said this too:
Perhaps all of Augustine’s writings should be considered when trying to discern his school of thought.

But I see you are simply “glossing over” what he had to say. It is obvious he was writing about Scripture but you seem to just pass it by. Don’t you believe what he wrote?

 

[Old_Scholar]

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
St. Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

For sure you don’t believe Augustine. Strange for a Roman Catholic.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yes I do know that. So how does that jive with your comment/belief?:

You must know that the apostles wrote down everything that was necessary and after they all died, there was nothing to authenticate except the Scriptures. We need nothing else. The Scriptures themselves tell us that.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I appreciate your time. But I find your explanation tortuous. As you said we must not read things in the Bible that are not there, and unfortunately, you have read much into it in order to satisfy your end. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (to a certain extent) all taught the Real Presence, though in heretical terms.
I am posting this so that you understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist are quite different from your understanding. I hope you read the below with an open heart, and not as an attack on your belief, but rather as correction to incorrect understanding, and a fuller explanation of the the Eucharist than your tradition provides.
His body and blood are spiritual food in that they feed our spirit.

I certainly agree with that. Spiritual food. That’s what I said.

The Manna is the foreshadowing of the Eucharist. If you feed on Jesus you will not hunger or thirst. But he does not say ALONE, he also says to love your enemy IN HIS NAME.
, no he says it later on 6:52-58

**But he spells it out completely here:

John6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.** The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

No, it is obvious that Jesus was referring to his physical self as being spiritual food… I did not see this in the passage. Sorry, it is obvious that Jesus REAL body and REAL blood are the spiritual food.

Not physically but spiritually.

But the his disciples did not leave him, nor did he have to repeat himself because the saying was hard. Then you should believe Jesus when he says we must feed on his body and drink his blood. Catholic Church does not teach the Eucharist would satisfy our physical hunger. You are confusing food that feeds the spirit with food that is spiritual. The Lord himself, who comes to us in the Eucharist, yes! Our spiritual food and drink. Yes, the entire Gospel. Which includes the part where many stopped following him because his teaching on the body and blood were too hard to accept. If it were spiritual bread, why was it so hard to understand?

But Jesus was the WORD INCARNATE, he was not a Spiritual life on earth!!! You are sounding a little Gnostic to me.

You keep quoting passages where Jesus is telling us His flesh is the bread we must eat in order to liver forever.

Jesus never said we must “spiritually eat” his body. Never disputed this. Jesus had not died yet, so he couldn’t have eaten his body and blood. **He had not died at the last Supper either and this iw where it all started. This is where He said take eat, this is my body, etc. So your premise about the thef is all wrong. ** This does not rule out the fact that now that we know all the other things Jesus taught must be done as well. Many other places he says other things AS WELL, yes we must believe, but we must also practice the beatitudes, love, be humble, feed the poor, be baptized, etc.

James 4:17
So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.

You do not understand the mass. Christ was sacrificed ONCE for ALL. Jesus is outside of space and time, so his sacrifice is ever present. The infinite is beyond our humans capacity of understanding.

AGAIN, his REAL body is our spiritual food. We are nourishing our spiritual bodies not our physical bodies, with his body. Yes he did. Beautiful allegories.YOUR interpretation. Water refers to Baptism, not to the blood he was about to shed.

I have taken the liberty of placing emphasis on your writing.

In Baptism we are born again, into his body eternal.

YES! No more animal sacrifice. Jesus was the ultimate last sacrifice. Commemorating is participating. We participate in his Sacrifice, just as the Jews had to eat the Lamb at the Passover. Jesus had said he would not **drink of the fruit of the vine **until he was in the Kingdom with his father. The fourth cup of the Passover meal was not drunk in the upper room as it should have been at a Passover meal, but on the Cross, and then Jesus said, “it is finished.” That is the Kingdom of God is now on Earth.

Jesus was not talking of the fourth cup here, but the cup he presented to His disciples at the last supper. You are ignoring that fact.
[SIGN]Amen[/SIGN]

Yes, and I have found CAF to be the most open to respectful dialogue of many opposing ideas, including those against the CC. Thank you for coming here and explaining your view.

I think perhaps we are both saying almost the same thing but a little differently. If His blood and flesh actually changed physically, then we would be sinning as we are told not to drink blood, etc.