Matt 16:18 and Aramaic/Greek

[Christ_is_Risen]

John 6:44 reads, “No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.” (DRA) Does that mean that the Father draws us directly, or could it be that the Holy Spirit plays a part in this? And don’t forget, “the Lord, our God is ONE”. Does the Holy Spirit do anything that the Father doesn’t know about? Could the Holy Spirit be at odds with the Father? Obviously not! In light of what po18guy has brought up about Origen, I would ask if this is an “infallible” teaching of the church, or is it just your own, fallible opinion?

Here is some context for the verse

41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

In the context of the Bread of Life passage, Jesus is giving those that can’t accept his teaching a polite blow off. Basically like saying, “If you don’t already know me, I can’t tell you.” The reference to the Father is a Johnian staple. He equates the Father to the Son in many many passages, especially when conversing with Jews that deny who he is. It is admittedly difficult at times to reconcile the very different tone and language of John with the synoptics, but when we look at what comes later, we see Jesus tell his insider group, a more detailed analysis than he gave to those on the outside.

In private with his disciples Jesus explains how the Father will send the Spirit to guide them after his departure in John 17. This verse explains in detail the orthodox teaching that we don’t come to the Son through the Father, but rather understand the Father through the Son.

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know[d] my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

and that Spirit is the giver of knowledge when the Son departs.

*25 “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. *

As for the Trinity, your posts lead me to believe you to be educated enough in this subject area to know that God is one, but the Father is not the Son who is not the Spirit.

I speak for me, the Church spoke on Origen over 1,000 year ago.

 

[po18guy]

Just because I post the entire paragraph in which the statements are made, you question whether it’s in context, but when catholics “quote” ECF’s, it’s assumed the context is correct for the way the quote is used. Why do I sense a double standard is being used here? And how can you compare the actual writings of the ECF with what someone wrote in Wikipedia?

You have already used one anti-Catholic site for your “ammo” To me, it appears that you are in search of allies rather than the truth. ECFs are not Popes and Church councils. They are extremely important int he history of the Church, but they are not protestant pastors that formulate their own doctrine - they contribute to the greater picture.

I don’t think it’s the same thing. What I do wonder is how, in light of Origen’s writing, anyone can assert that the primacy of Peter has been a constant teaching of the church for 2,000 years. This is clearly untrue. As far as this being “one man’s opinion”, I could find other ECF’s that would express similar opinions, but it seems to me that we are straying from the topic, so I will not continue along this line.

The blindest of all are those who blind themselves. Was Origen the only Christian in his age? Did he speak with absolute infallible authority? Was he the EF Hutton of his age? You must have Googled every fundamentalist site on earth to snag an anti-Peter quote of one man who came under the fire of Church leaders, both East and West, for his actions and writings.

Did you conveniently ‘miss’ the other ECF references to Peter and his successors? Yes, you did. Again.

 

[Cachonga]

po18guy:

You have already used one anti-Catholic site for your “ammo” To me, it appears that you are in search of allies rather than the truth. ECFs are not Popes and Church councils. They are extremely important int he history of the Church, but they are not protestant pastors that formulate their own doctrine - they contribute to the greater picture.

Excuse me, but didn’t I point out that the EXACT SAME CITATION I gave from the Orthodox site is found in the Faith Database, which is available in the Catholic Answers shop? Are you saying that Catholic Answers is selling anti-catholic material? I seriously doubt that! I also added the next chapter from the citation directly from the very same Faith Database. Furthermore, I cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia (also found on the Catholic Answers web site) about what the Church has to say about Origen. I leave it to those who read this thread to decide which of us is being honest.

The blindest of all are those who blind themselves. Was Origen the only Christian in his age? Did he speak with absolute infallible authority? Was he the EF Hutton of his age? You must have Googled every fundamentalist site on earth to snag an anti-Peter quote of one man who came under the fire of Church leaders, both East and West, for his actions and writings.

I gave a total of 3 citations, one from an Orthodox site, and the other 2 from sources available through Catholic Answers. What makes you think I Googled any fundamentalist web sites for anything? I make it a practice, when discussing with Catholics, to use (as much as possible) their own sources. I would point out that, based on what I cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it seems the Church leaders think more of Origen than you do. Again, I leave it to those who read this thread to decide which of us is being honest.

Did you conveniently ‘miss’ the other ECF references to Peter and his successors? Yes, you did. Again.

I most certainly could give more citations of ECF’s that support what I’ve already given from Origen, but I don’t feel that it’s entirely on topic.

 

[po18guy]

Excuse me, but didn’t I point out that the EXACT SAME CITATION I gave from the Orthodox site is found in the Faith Database, which is available in the Catholic Answers shop? Are you saying that Catholic Answers is selling anti-catholic material? I seriously doubt that! I also added the next chapter from the citation directly from the very same Faith Database. Furthermore, I cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia (also found on the Catholic Answers web site) about what the Church has to say about Origen. I leave it to those who read this thread to decide which of us is being honest.

No. I question only your very selective use of sources.

I gave a total of 3 citations, one from an Orthodox site, and the other 2 from sources available through Catholic Answers. What makes you think I Googled any fundamentalist web sites for anything? I make it a practice, when discussing with Catholics, to use (as much as possible) their own sources. I would point out that, based on what I cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it seems the Church leaders think more of Origen than you do. Again, I leave it to those who read this thread to decide which of us is being honest.

Bias, not honesty.

I most certainly could give more citations of ECF’s that support what I’ve already given from Origen, but I don’t feel that it’s entirely on topic.

Please note that I am not on Cachonga.com trying to deconstruct your views. You are on a Catholic site consistently questioning Catholicism. What do you expect, agreement?