R
- Status
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Hey come on, I am trying to be nice here. It isn’t easy for me!As I could have said the same thing about being led by the Holy Spirit
God bless
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
So His flesh does profit us. Then this verse could not possibly be saying what you think it is saying because we both agree that His flesh most surely profits us a great deal.
I believe Jesus is questioning the way in which they were thinking about what He had said. They said it was a hard saying, how can someone give us their flesh to eat? Well, Jesus tells them, change the way you are thinking because the words I speak are of spirit and and life and the way you are thinking (with the flesh) is of no avail.
The reason why many of His disciples “drew back” wasn’t over their fear that He was symbolically giving us His flesh to eat, but their fear that He meant every word of what He just said to them.
You may not agree with what I think, and that is fine but we both agree our Lord cannot be saying what you thought He was saying, because His flesh does profit us.
God bless
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
By the way I just noticed you were a Mormon. I like Mormons. I thought you were something else so I had my spikes up a bitHey come on, I am trying to be nice here. It isn’t easy for me!
God bless
J
jim1130
Guest
I never did get an answer to this:
Southern Baptists believe that once saved-always saved means you have NO chance of losing salvation (100% guarantee) whereas Free Will Baptists believe you can lose your salvation.
An essential issue with two differing positions? Which is correct?
J
jim1130
Guest
Christ says, in verse 64, “THE flesh,” not “HIS flesh.” If Christ had been so careful to ensure that He has emphasized “His flesh and blood” then it is also apparent that when he uses the term “the flesh” it indicates he is no longer speaking of himself, of His flesh, anymore, for it is His flesh that profits everything, but “the (our) flesh” profits nothing.
If you look at the verses in John 6 you will notice that 6 times there is a specific and direct reference to Christ’s “MY flesh and my blood.” He emphasizes and differentiates that He is speaking of His flesh and blood.
I share with you four examples of the following pattern provided by St. John in his Gspel: (1) Ambiguous Statement from Jesus, (2) Question from those around; (3) Clarification.
St. John 2: 18 The Jews, therefore, answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto us, seeing thou dost these things? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up. 20 The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days? 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.
St. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
St. John 4: 31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat. 32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not. 33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? 34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.
St. John 8:30 When he spoke these things, many believed in him. 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham: and we have never been slaves to any man. How sayest thou: You shall be free? 34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you that whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Now, taking the pattern established by St. John of (1) Ambiguous Statement from Jesus, (2) Question from those around; (3) Clarification, let us apply it in St. John 6:
St. John 6: 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
In the end, what we have is a reaffirmation of what Jesus said.
St. John 6: 67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
Again, a subtle reaffirmation from Jesus because he did not call those who walked away back to inform them he had been misunderstood.
If the crowd was incorrect—if they took Jesus literally when He was only speaking figuratively, Jesus, who knows their thoughts, would have immediately corrected them. The fact that Jesus watched them walk away and did not run after the dispersing crowds to correct their “false perception” proves that their understanding of His preaching was an accurate one! The crowd was right. They had gotten the message—Jesus meant literally what He had said. This is a very powerful indicator that the historic Catholic understanding of the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ is, in fact, the correct explanation of Christ’s words in John chapter six.
In closing, six times in St. John 6 Jesus states “My flesh and my blood.” This means he had six chances to clarify what he was saying as figurative or a discord on “faith only.”
But he did not. Why did he not clarify?
S
Shawnpreston
Guest
If I may be permitted to respond?
Flesh indeed does nothing for us; if by flesh you mean OURS. After all, we see nothing but temptation in our body’s desires without Christ. Christ’s flesh, however, does wonders-spiritually, physically, and within the context of grace, given to all who are willing to accept it.
To argue against the passage Biblically presented concerning Christ’s body and blood, is an agitation. Why argue the point when the evidence is so overwhelming? I would contend the argument is based primarily upon the self. This is what constitutes most of Protestantism (as opposed to Catholicism): a reliance on self-interpretation of the Bible, self-relationship with Christ, solo-repentance of sins, etc.
So many churches, so many different interpretations. I fail to see a consensus about salvation, the road to it, or what constititues it. I didn’t want to join this club, but the facts, the history, and the Biblical evidence proved otherwise.
Shawn
Flesh indeed does nothing for us; if by flesh you mean OURS. After all, we see nothing but temptation in our body’s desires without Christ. Christ’s flesh, however, does wonders-spiritually, physically, and within the context of grace, given to all who are willing to accept it.
To argue against the passage Biblically presented concerning Christ’s body and blood, is an agitation. Why argue the point when the evidence is so overwhelming? I would contend the argument is based primarily upon the self. This is what constitutes most of Protestantism (as opposed to Catholicism): a reliance on self-interpretation of the Bible, self-relationship with Christ, solo-repentance of sins, etc.
So many churches, so many different interpretations. I fail to see a consensus about salvation, the road to it, or what constititues it. I didn’t want to join this club, but the facts, the history, and the Biblical evidence proved otherwise.
Shawn
M
mfbukowski
Guest
We agree on this part, but what I am saying is that he told those who stayed that those who left were taking his words “carnally” (literally here) instead of how he meant the words- spiritually-- which is why he said his words were “spirit”
Ok so now I think we understand precisely how we disagree here.
It just shows how a little amibuity in one verse can lead to vast doctrinal differences.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Neither. If we don’t get an honest shot at it here, the gospel is taught in the spirit world too. Jesus (and others) preaching to the spirits in prison continues today. (1Peter 3 and 4, and others)
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
mfbukowski
We are at an impasse. You do not think the verse is saying what I think it is saying and we both agree that Jesus is not telling us that His flesh profits nothing. So what do we do from here? I will say I am being led by the Holy Spirit and you will say you are being led by the Holy Spirit. You will say that I am following traditions of men and I have already told you that you are.
God bless
R
Ronald_E
Guest
I also never wanted to join this club. I did not get the facts until God guided me through 40 years of searching everywhere except the Catholic church that I had left at age 18.
I saw miracles that drew me closer and when I read the bible I could see that what I learned about quantum physics proved to me that the line from Christ to the apostles and to the Catholic Church is the continuation of that breath that Jesus breathed on His apostles and told them that all power in heaven and on earth was given to them. His breath and His creative power through His Word to bring Him into the Eucharist is passed on to each priest through the sacrament of the priesthood that He gave His apostles the power to create.
It is His Word and His Breath that create the Eucharist. It is connected to the Catholic Church through the unbroken line of the priesthood. Outside the Catholic Church it is symbolic.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
He did in verse 63. Read Augustine.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I agree that Mormons and protestants believe you should think for yourself instead of being directed by “experts”. But I think we should all do what makes us most comfortable with the gospel. I think Catholics have a need for authority and history, and that is what makes them most comfortable.
I have always been a bit rebellious myself! I want everything to make sense according to my standards. I think we will all be judged according to our needs.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Tell me more how this fits with quantum physics.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
That is a major difference. By your statement and by observation of many Protestant claims – that prevailing thought that God must be conformed to our image. Find the ‘church’ that aligns with your own interpretation. Instead, we must be conformed to God – and if our faulty beliefs do not align with the truth of God, we must conform ourselves to the truth (not the other way around).
J
jim1130
Guest
St. John 6;63 - "It is the spirit that quickeneteh: the flesh profiteth nothing: The words that I speak unto you,they are spirit and they are life."
You are misinterpreting. Jesus is warning them not think “carnally.” The flesh he speaks of, and I had thought I had explained it, is our flesh.
Please show some examples from other Bible books, chapters, and verses that eating flesh and drinking blood was symbolic of spirituality. Remember, Jesus spoke to an audience familiar with the colloquialisms of the day. You must take off your 21st century blinders to understand what he said, what he meant, and how it was interpreted.
Too bad that is all you got out of reading St. Augustine. Remember that St. Augustine was a theologian, not the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. There are many who struggle with the mysteries of faith.
You also need to re-read:
St. Matthew 26:26-28
St. Mark 14:22-24
St. Luke 22:19-20
1 Corinthians 11:24-25
Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say that this is a symbol of my body and blood.
You should also read:
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165)
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200)
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200)
As well as Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Here is the site: earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
J
jim1130
Guest
The only true path is your path, right? Anyone who does not adhere to your “path” is wrong. Sounds like spiritual anarchy to me (do what YOU want and rationalize it any way possible to justify your stance).
J
jim1130
Guest
How simplistic, naïve, and downright ignorant!
Not all of us are Biblical scholars well educated in the history, political environment and idioms during the time of Jesus and capable of translating ancient Greek and Arabic to come to our own determinations and conclusions. Without authority there is anarchy, and you and others who proclaim inspiration by the Holy Spirit defy authority and are nothing more than theological anarchists.
That being said, you are guilty of hypocrisy because by the very claim that I “abdicate that responsibility to experts” so have you. By what knowledge do you affirm the Bible to be accurate? The inspired word of God? How was the Bible compiled? And where in the Bible, which Testament (Old or New), book, chapter, and verse does the Bible identify specifically those books to be included?
You claim an independent thought process, but that “independence” fails you because you must rely on the experts to give you the Bible, which is the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church who was led by the Holy Spirit to compile the same book you try to interpret on your own and condemn the Catholic Church. You try to rationalize that you have come to your own conclusion under a great revelation, but the truth is that you are only kidding yourself for without an authority to determine the inspired scriptures you would have nothing.
So, in a sense, by using the Bible, you confirm that the Catholic Church is the true Church of God; sadly, you are a little too full of yourself to see it. You may have a “brain,” but you fail to display the wisdom to use it.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Ah yes grasshopper but this is not the problem. The problem is how do you know what God wants you to do?
That is the problem. Do you trust the experts about that – those who are men just like you, or do you trust God to speak to you?
It is not that I make God in my image. The question is who I trust to tell me who God is.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Genesis 14:17 among other places. What was the priesthood Melchizadek had? It was not Levitical. Why did Abraham pay him tithes, and arguably have a “communion service”? And why is Christ said to be a Priest forever after the order of Melchizadek?
Who was this guy and what were they doing?
Your other cites apply only if you believe Catholic tradition, which I do not accept
- Status