Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

[Old_Scholar]

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

What makes you believe I would want to use derogatory terms. I haven’t been even though others have been using them towards me. It is not my intention to do such a thing. That’s why I appreciate it if someone tells me they think it is such.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has been pruned of off topic posts and a new thread has been split off from it which can be found here.
MF
[SPLIT: God is the only one that can forgive sin. A priest cannot. You must confess your sins to God, not a priest.](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=241881)

 

[Lampo]

Have I learned a lot since I started here?

You and me both!!

 

[Lampo]

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?

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

“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.

 

[sodak]

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.

I agree that the period of general relevation was closed at the death of the last Apostle, John, I believe. That’s a Catholic teaching, by the way.

What I’m not getting is the part you talk about that they wrote everything down that is necessary, and the Scriptures tell us this. Where is that?

And how do you authenticate Scripture?

 

[elvisman]

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

**??? **
Does that mean that you don’t believe that he (Augustine) said that?
OR - are you just dodging the statement that I posed to you?

 

[elvisman]

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.

John 5:39-40
**"You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. **
But you do not want to come to me to have life."

This CLEARLY states that no matter how much you depend on the Scriptures, you’re LOST unless you accept HIM.

---

Luke 10:16 says EXPLICITLY:
**Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." **

Finally, since you dodged my question about Matt. 18:15-18, I’ll spell it out for you:

---

**“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. **
**If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ **If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
**Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

 

[BRB]

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.

The Apostolic power of Church Universal is tugging on him.

Catholics say it takes a miracle for a protestant to convert … he is working out his miracle with fear and persistence.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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

When you put your entire response within the quoted post, it’s nearly impossible to respond point by point. It requires a lot of cutting and pasting, but I’ll give it a shot.
OS:

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.

Yes, we must feed our spirits. IOW, our human minds (flesh) cannot understand this “hard saying” we must take Jesus at his word that what he JUST GOTTEN DONE SAYING SIX TIMES in order to have everlasting life.
Just before his discourse on his flesh being true food, he says:
John 6:36 **
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. *Then after his discourse he says
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.
I fail to see how you can take ONE verse, misinterpret it and use it to misinterpret a message that Jesus took the trouble to repeat six times, including not rectifying his "disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” "
and the fact that *
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this **shock ***you?
Of course they were shocked. Leviticus tells us not to drink blood. BUT PLEASE!! Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Read Acts where Peter had a dream and all the “forbidden” foods were presented to him. Do you eat shrimp and Pork? Does your wife have to go to temple to purify herself after having your children? Are women still untouchable while they are menstruating?

qui:

He had not died at the last Supper either and this iw where it all started.
OS:

This is where He said take eat, this is my body, etc. So your premise about the thef is all wrong.

keep reading

qui:

This does not rule out the fact that now that we know all the other things Jesus taught must be done as well.
James 4:17
So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.

You are being purposely stubborn here by playing verse slinging games. It’s not cute, and actually unbecoming of a scholar as you claim to be. You yourself believe it is important to celebrate Eucharist. We all know that it is by the freely given Grace of God that we are saved. We must believe, yes, believe that we should accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, and DO what he tells us to do. PERIOD.

qui:

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.
OS:

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.

What are you talking about? Do you know anything about the Seder and the four cups that must be drunk? Why did they only drink three cups before they left to go pray? Do you think Jesus forgot? No, everything he did had significance. He gave the disciples the cup of his blood (quote unquote), in the wine - I won’t get into semantics of Transubtaniation here - then said he would not eat of the fruit of the vine until he drank it WITH them new in the kingdom of his father. TELL ME, when did he drink wine again - just before he died on the cross.*

 

[qui_est_ce]

Perhaps all of Augustine’s writings should be considered when trying to discern his school of thought.
Old Scholar;3712384:

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

???
**Does that mean that you don’t **believe that he (Augustine) said that?
OR - are you just dodging the statement that I posed to you?

I don’t understand his answer either. OS is resorting to cherry picking the posts out of conext and refuting them with indecipherable one-liners.

 

[Old_Scholar]

John 5:39-40
"You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
But you do not want to come to me to have life."

This CLEARLY states that no matter how much you depend on the Scriptures, you’re LOST unless you accept HIM.

---

Luke 10:16 says EXPLICITLY:
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

**Finally, since you dodged my question about Matt. 18:15-18, **I’ll spell it out for you:

---

**“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. **
**If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

You are reading too much into the Scriptures here. As you have said, the statements must be taken in the proper context.

Christ is saying that if two or three witnesses cannot resolve a problem with one who has had a ‘charge’ made against them, then it goes before the body of the church. (I explained this fully in another post, just not sure where it is now) If the church body, decides that the charge filed against the person is valid, and if the body of the church duly follows Christ’s teachings, then censures that person, that censure will be according to God’s word and it will be “bound” as in heaven. This has nothing to do with the confession of sins—that is a different matter altogether.

If that person should repent when it is brought before the church, then the episode is forgotten right there. But if if remains, and if that person truly repents later, then the punishment has reached its end, and the offender must be forgiven, and they may “loose” him again. The person must be comforted and brought back into the fellowship of the church and again allowed to receive communion, or as you put it, participate in the Eucharist.

There is no gulf between heaven and hell that is unpassable. Anyone who receives, upon their repentance, into communion again by the church, then that person may take their absolution in heaven. If their hearts are right again with God then absolution is justified.

This does not pertain to forgiving of sins but instead follows the old Jewish custom of binding and loosing.

 

[Old_Scholar]

When you put your entire response within the quoted post, it’s nearly impossible to respond point by point. It requires a lot of cutting and pasting, but I’ll give it a shot.

Yes, we must feed our spirits. IOW, our human minds (flesh) cannot understand this “hard saying” we must take Jesus at his word that what he JUST GOTTEN DONE SAYING SIX TIMES in order to have everlasting life.
Just before his discourse on his flesh being true food, he says:
John 6:36 **
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. **Then after his discourse he says
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.
I fail to see how you can take ONE verse, misinterpret it and use it to misinterpret a message that Jesus took the trouble to repeat six times, including not rectifying his "disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” "
and the fact that *
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this **shock ***you?
Of course they were shocked. Leviticus tells us not to drink blood. BUT PLEASE!! Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Read Acts where Peter had a dream and all the “forbidden” foods were presented to him. Do you eat shrimp and Pork? Does your wife have to go to temple to purify herself after having your children? Are women still untouchable while they are menstruating?

keep readingYou are being purposely stubborn here by playing verse slinging games. It’s not cute, and actually unbecoming of a scholar as you claim to be. You yourself believe it is important to celebrate Eucharist. We all know that it is by the freely given Grace of God that we are saved. We must believe, yes, believe that we should accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, and DO what he tells us to do. PERIOD.

What are you talking about? Do you know anything about the Seder and the four cups that must be drunk? Why did they only drink three cups before they left to go pray? Do you think Jesus forgot? No, everything he did had significance. He gave the disciples the cup of his blood (quote unquote), in the wine - I won’t get into semantics of Transubtaniation here - then said he would not eat of the fruit of the vine until he drank it WITH them new in the kingdom of his father. TELL ME, when did he drink wine again - just before he died on the cross.

I’m sorry but there is no indication of them following the Seder and using 4 cups. Read it all again. In one verse He passes the cup around saying drink, eat, and then in the next verse he tells them what it represents and then in the very next verse says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again. He has to be talking about the cup. There is no indication of anything else there.

Mark and Luke both have it the same way.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I don’t understand his answer either. OS is resorting to cherry picking the posts out of conext and refuting them with indecipherable one-liners.

Well if you believe him when he says that he would not believe the Scriptures unless the church told him to, then you must believe him when he says that during the Eucharist the flesh and blood are not present, except spiritually. He says it is a commeration. Didn’t you read that too?

 

[eagertolearn]

If His blood and flesh actually changed physically, then we would be sinning as we are told not to drink blood, etc.

Christ came to establish New covenant, complete and fulfill the Old covenant. Some of the old Jewish laws and traditions are no longer applicable i.e. type of meat, washing hands, drinking blood (especially when he told us to)…



ETL

 

[Lampo]

Well if you believe him when he says that he would not believe the Scriptures unless the church told him to, then you must believe him when he says that during the Eucharist the flesh and blood are not present, except spiritually. He says it is a commeration. Didn’t you read that too?

Have you read Scott Hahn’s The Hunt for the Fourth Cup?

 

[Monkey1976]

Well if you believe him when he says that he would not believe the Scriptures unless the church told him to, then you must believe him when he says that during the Eucharist the flesh and blood are not present, except spiritually. He says it is a commeration. Didn’t you read that too?

In his Sermons, St. Augustine is quite explicit regarding what the Eucharist is:

St. Augustine, Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:

... I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. **That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.** Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. **But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit.** ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!' and you answer: `Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your `Amen' may be the truth.

If you doubt that this is a consistent teaching, allow me to present the words of St. Justin Martyr:

St Justin Martyr, First Apology, [LXVI] A.D. 150-160:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

And those of St. Ignatius of Antioch:

St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, [VII] A.D. 105-115:

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

 

[BRB]

In his Sermons, St. Augustine is quite explicit regarding what the Eucharist is:

St. Augustine, Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:

... I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. **That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.** Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. **But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit.** ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!' and you answer: `Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your `Amen' may be the truth.

If you doubt that this is a consistent teaching, allow me to present the words of St. Justin Martyr:

St Justin Martyr, First Apology, [LXVI] A.D. 150-160:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

And those of St. Ignatius of Antioch:

St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, [VII] A.D. 105-115:

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Indeed …

All the ancient saints of early Christendom understood the Eucharist for what it was … a miracle transformation / transubstantiation of hosts by Christ into ALL of Himself. For those who partake with Spiritual Eyes as Augustine says “if one receives worthily … you are what you received”.

St. Ambrose and others also wrote to this effect …in late 300’s.

I suspect what O.S. found earlier by Augustine, was an early writing by him — before he came to fully appreciate the power of the sacrament. Augustine was a worldly man … and it takes a while to fully work ‘worldly ideas’ from thoughts/understanding.

Finally, the scripture for this sunday is on the Eucharist … as taken from John.

O.S. … go to Mass this weekend and witness first hand what a Catholic Mass is all about. Its not enough to just watch Pope celebrate Mass on TV or read about it in books. You must experience Catholocism … don’t just learn about it vicariously here on internet.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well if you believe him when he says that he would not believe the Scriptures unless the church told him to, then you must believe him when he says that during the Eucharist the flesh and blood are not present, except spiritually. He says it is a commeration. Didn’t you read that too?

St Augustin is not the infallible Authority of the Catholic Church. He is not the author of Doctrine.

I’m sorry but there is no indication of them following the Seder and using 4 cups. Read it all again. In one verse He passes the cup around saying drink, eat, and then in the next verse he tells them what it represents and then in the very next verse says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again. He has to be talking about the cup. There is no indication of anything else there.

Mark and Luke both have it the same way.

what were they celebrating? High tea?

We know the third cup is the "Cup of Blessing. Paul identifies this “cup of blessing” with the Eucharistic cup (1 Cor. 10:16). The Gospel writers assume their audience knows the custom, and they don’t need to go into details. What the Gospel writers DID write, everything that was significant. I marvel at their insight so early after the death of Jesus. Of course it was the HS.

Do you honestly believe EVERYTHING Jesus did was written down? Read John 21:25.

 

[elvisman]

You are reading too much into the Scriptures here. As you have said, the statements must be taken in the proper context.

Christ is saying that if two or three witnesses cannot resolve a problem with one who has had a ‘charge’ made against them, then it goes before the body of the church. (I explained this fully in another post, just not sure where it is now) If the church body, decides that the charge filed against the person is valid, and if the body of the church duly follows Christ’s teachings, then censures that person, that censure will be according to God’s word and it will be “bound” as in heaven. This has nothing to do with the confession of sins—that is a different matter altogether.

If that person should repent when it is brought before the church, then the episode is forgotten right there. But if if remains, and if that person truly repents later, then the punishment has reached its end, and the offender must be forgiven, and they may “loose” him again. The person must be comforted and brought back into the fellowship of the church and again allowed to receive communion, or as you put it, participate in the Eucharist.

There is no gulf between heaven and hell that is unpassable. Anyone who receives, upon their repentance, into communion again by the church, then that person may take their absolution in heaven. If their hearts are right again with God then absolution is justified.

This does not pertain to forgiving of sins but instead follows the old Jewish custom of binding and loosing.

Again, you’ve managed to dance around the issue.
The issue I brought up in Matt. 18:15-18* was to show you that the Church*** is the final authority – not the Scriptures. This is not the text that shows the necessity of confession.**

---

That would be John 20:21-23 *(and a few other places):*
**(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” **
**And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

---

Notice the significance of Jesus’ breathing on the apostles. Only 2 places in Scripture does God breathe on man: When he breathed life into Adam and when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose – to forgive sins or to retain them. You cannot dance around this. It couldn’t have been spelled out more specifically.

---

Remember this, Old “Scholar”: The New Testament writings were born from the Church – not the other way around.****

 

[qui_est_ce]

**(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” **
**And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

---

Notice the significance of Jesus’ breathing on the apostles. Only 2 places in Scripture does God breathe on man: When he breathed life into Adam and when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose – to forgive sins or to retain them.

I’m so glad you pointed this out. It is another example how important it is to approach the Scriptures from the Jewish culture of the era. The Jews would have recognized that only God can “breathe” life. Here Jesus is breathing Spritual life into them.