Partaking Of The Divine Nature

[Protestant101]

John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

It is very poor theology which suggests that such a verse would apply to anyone who does not accept Roman Catholic doctrine on the “Eucharist.” Questioning the Catholic theology on this does not consititute ‘walking no more with Jesus.’ Partaking of His nature does not mean that we are mysteriously made into little God’s by eating a piece of bread that is alleged to be His literal flesh, not unless you are a Mormon trapped in a Catholic body.

“His nature” refers to His character as in 2 Cor.5:17 and the “change” that all who are IN CHRIST must undergo. It is without this change ONLY that it can be said we ‘walk no more with Him.’

 

[Matariel]

Partaking of His nature does not mean that we are mysteriously made into little God’s by eating a piece of bread that is alleged to be His literal flesh…

You’ll never understand or acknowledge Catholic beliefs if you keep mischaracterizing them. It’s just like when the JW’s accuse us of worshipping three separate Gods, when of course we do not. We aren’t mysterious made into little gods every time we partake of the Blessed Sacrament. Please stop mischaraterizing our beliefs, as that isn’t very charitable or reasonable.

…not unless you are a Mormon trapped in a Catholic body.

Mischaracterization again.

“His nature” refers to His character as in 2 Cor.5:17…

This doesn’t seem to make sense. Got any evidence that this is what “nature” means here?

…Also, I’m still waiting to hear your response on what I said earlier; let me reinterate.

If Zwingli was right, and the Sacrament was just an empty symbol; then, why were the early Christians universally accepting of it? Why did direct disciples of Peter and John teach it? Why was in unquestioned (except, of course, by the Gnostics) in the Church until the liberal, humanist Zwingli came along?

Please answer these questions, Protestant 101. I’ve asked this three times now.

 

[Protestant101]

You’ll never understand or acknowledge Catholic beliefs if you keep mischaracterizing them. It’s just like when the JW’s accuse us of worshipping three separate Gods, when of course we do not. We aren’t mysterious made into little gods every time we partake of the Blessed Sacrament. Please stop mischaraterizing our beliefs, as that isn’t very charitable or reasonable.

I would suggest that your are digging deep for a little “mischaracterizing” yourself.

Catholics are the ones who give the rest of us the “pictures” as I have described them. Catholics are the ones who say that they lieterally eat the literal flesh of Jesus, and that THIS is how THEY “partake of the divine nature.”

 

[Matariel]

I would suggest that your are digging deep for a little “mischaracterizing” yourself.

I do not intentionally mischaracterize Protestants. Heck, I used to be one.

Catholics are the ones who give the rest of us the “pictures” as I have described them. Catholics are the ones who say that they lieterally eat the literal flesh of Jesus, and that THIS is how THEY “partake of the divine nature.”

I disagree. I think “partaking of the divine nature” really has to do with theosis, not the Holy Eucharist.

…Also, I’m still waiting to hear your response on what I said earlier; let me reinterate.

If Zwingli was right, and the Sacrament was just an empty symbol; then, why were the early Christians universally accepting of it? Why did direct disciples of Peter and John teach it? Why was in unquestioned (except, of course, by the Gnostics) in the Church until the liberal, humanist Zwingli came along?

Please answer these questions, Protestant 101. I’ve asked this three times now.

THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I’ve asked you to answer these questions, Protestant 101! Why won’t you answer?

 

[Protestant101]

I do not intentionally mischaracterize Protestants. Heck, I used to be one.

And I do not intentionally “mischaracterize” Catholics or anyone else…

 

[Matariel]

And I do not intentionally “mischaracterize” Catholics or anyone else…

…Also, I’m still waiting to hear your response on what I said earlier; let me reinterate.

If Zwingli was right, and the Sacrament was just an empty symbol; then, why were the early Christians universally accepting of it? Why did direct disciples of Peter and John teach it? Why was in unquestioned (except, of course, by the Gnostics) in the Church until the liberal, humanist Zwingli came along?

Please answer these questions, Protestant 101. I’ve asked this three times now.

THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I’ve asked you to answer these questions, Protestant 101! Why won’t you answer?

This is the FIFTH TIME I’ve asked!!! Why can’t you answer?

 

[Protestant101]

Acts 8:31.

The Fathers of the Church Christ founded are guiding us. Who’s guiding you?

Acts 8:27 tells us about this man, the “Ethiopian.” He was “a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure;” therefore he cannot be counted as a Church authority, or as an arbiter of doctrine. He had a special experience with the One who leads all Christians; and we can be thankful for His witness to us even today. Jesus is the “Cornerstone” of the Church, and it is He who guides all true Christians today.

John 6:66 doesn’t say “Jews.” It says “disciples.” Read it.

Quite true; John 6:66 does say disciples, and this was exactly my point. Many of the disciples referred to in this text were indeed “Jews,” and when one does a contextual study of this passage it is clear that the Jews of Jesus’ day did indeed have a real hatred of Him, because He kept saying how He was God, and how He alone could forgive sins. This is one of several reasons why it would be quite correct to say that the reason these disciples “walked no more with Jesus,” was because of how the previous verses actually outline how this same problem had been ocurring again. It proves decisively that the “bread” and the “wine” are not literal flesh and blood.

Then why were they walking with Him in the first place? Matthew 15:14.

Many “disciples,” (not limited to just the twelve) walked with Jesus for insincere, selfish reasons. But for an example of one of the twelve that all would understand here, look at Judas. he walked with Jesus too; and it is very obvious how Judas reached a point where he “walked no more with Him.” I have said nothing here that is not scriptural.

 

[Protestant101]

This is the FIFTH TIME I’ve asked!!! Why can’t you answer?

I don’t follow “Zwingli,” nor Peter, or Paul or Mary. I follow Jesus, and He does not teach the “sacraments” as you do.

 

[guanophore]

Quite true; John 6:66 does say disciples, and this was exactly my point. Many of the disciples referred to in this text were indeed “Jews,” and when one does a contextual study of this passage it is clear that the Jews of Jesus’ day did indeed have a real hatred of Him, because He kept saying how He was God, and how He alone could forgive sins. This is one of several reasons why it would be quite correct to say that the reason these disciples “walked no more with Jesus,” was because of how the previous verses actually outline how this same problem had been ocurring again. It proves decisively that the “bread” and the “wine” are not literal flesh and blood.

I am sorry, I do not understand this at all. How does the disbelief of the Jews make null what Christ said about Himself?

 

[Protestant101]

I am sorry, I do not understand this at all. How does the disbelief of the Jews make null what Christ said about Himself?

You have to review a number of posts back to get this. I was told that the fact that the Bible says some of Jesus’ disciples walked with Him no more, means that they were by this act rejecting the “bread” and the “wine” as being literal “flesh” and blood. But I have been saying that NO. This is not so. This is not why the disciples walked away and the proof of this can be seen if we examine Jo. 6:66 in the context of some of the previous verses.

 

[Matariel]

I don’t follow “Zwingli,” nor Peter, or Paul or Mary. I follow Jesus, and He does not teach the “sacraments” as you do.

I follow Jesus, and He does teach that the Bread of the Eucharist is “My Body”. As St. Paul confirms in the inerrant Scriptures.

Truth is, you do follow the humanist liberal Zwingli. And no doubt the Docetists and Gnostics would agree, as they abstained from the Eucharist, because they did not confess It to be the Body and Blood of the Saviour who was crucified for us. Go figure.

 

[Protestant101]

Truth is, you do follow the humanist liberal Zwingli.

The only thing I can’t figure is why you didn’t just say this in the first place instead of going through all that fancy hub bub you did of “asking” me 5 times. It was pretty obvious what you were up to. When you come up with some scriptural evidence to refute what I have said on this thread, I will be happy to reply.

 

[guanophore]

You have to review a number of posts back to get this. I was told that the fact that the Bible says some of Jesus’ disciples walked with Him no more, means that they were by this act rejecting the “bread” and the “wine” as being literal “flesh” and blood. But I have been saying that NO. This is not so. This is not why the disciples walked away and the proof of this can be seen if we examine Jo. 6:66 in the context of some of the previous verses.

Sorry, I am a little behind on the posts!

Ok, that makes sense. Yes, since the bread and wine had not yet been offered, they could only know that he was talking about his actual flesh and blood.

Such an idea would be scandalous to a Jew.

 

[Matariel]

The only thing I can’t figure is why you didn’t just say this in the first place…

I did. And then asked you why you did follow Zwingli.

There are alot of ex-Adventist Catholics here that I’m sure can help you out if you need it. I don’t know why some people waste my time by spewing reguritated strawmen arguements and mischaraterizations instead of actively seeking the Truth. I did seek the Truth, and it brought me to the Catholic Church founded by Christ, which the gates of Hell will never prevail against.

…instead of going through all that fancy hub bub you did of “asking” me 5 times.

I asked you five times because you only responded to 1/3 of my posts and actively ignored the question I posed.

It was pretty obvious what you were up to.

Yes, asking a question is what I was up to. What are you getting at? I’ve found that a common tactic of people who are losing an arguement is to engage in meaningless, nonsensical sentences like the previous vague statements you made above.

One can only wonder what your true motives are…

When you come up with some scriptural evidence to refute what I have said on this thread, I will be happy to reply.

I already have over and over again.

Besides all the previously stated evidence, what about the use of the word trogo by Jesus in John 6? It means* to chew or gnaw *with the teeth. It is a graphic, non-figurative term. It is never used in the Bible figuratively, and it never appears in Greek secular and pagan writings as figurative.

Obviously, Christ was explaining His Eucharistic Presence with us, which will be with us always, until the end of the world.