Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[twb1621]

Since Protestants use the Bible as God’s Word, what is written is directly related to the authority of God Himself. So Protestants also "do so knowing that they are not following God’s Word. (and often they’ll try to rationalize it, and even more often later they’ll realize their error and repent). "

Ginger, I sincerely ask this of you. Please read forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5623591&postcount=938
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5623595&postcount=939
and provide an honest interpretation and answer to the posts as to what you get from them. You haven’t responded to them as of yet but I do feel because it is scripture it deserves your consideration.

 

[erikd]

This thread is not about the canon of Scripture. I think we have spread out far enough without bringing another topic in.

In post 982 you claimed that Martin Luther had used the same canon the Church used for 1000 years before him. That is factually incorrect, so you brought up the issue. I corrected your historical facts.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Christ knew the thoughts of His listeners. They seriously were perverting this teaching with thoughts of canabalsm in nature and I think the Douay-Rheims sums it up perfectly regarding that verse.

]“The flesh profiteth nothing”… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

. Hi Des , thanks for your reply. You are telling me what the Duoay Rheims Bible commentary says, That’s an inferior Bible in Acts 2:38 to support baptismal regeneration: “Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They mistranslate the Greek word “metanoia” as do penance which is also the basis for the Catholic incorrect teaching on penance. There are other mistranslation too. In the newer Catholic Bibles it’s been corrected to “Repent” But regardless how they explain the above, What does this sentence mean to you? John 6:63, “--------The words I have spoken to you are Spirit -----”. So Jesus can’t be speaking about literally consuming His Flesh upon receiving communion Ed O.

 

[erikd]

I never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out the traditions passed on by the Apostles in this document are all written in the Scriptures.

I thought I had already addresses the supposed line of succession.

1. **it doesn’t say Peter **passed on the chair to Linus. it says the Apostles, (probably referring to Peter and Paul in context) gave Linus a territory to head, not to be head over the whole church. It also says Polycarp was given a specific territory, too.

There is more, but that’s a start.

In post 995 you mentioned an epistle, only referring to the Bible, and you took out the sentences which showed the Apostles directly instructing the successive Popes. In other words, you seemed to take what applied to your idea, and presented it as the truth. At least you can admit that, can’t you? As far as Polycarp, remember that even today Bishops have their specific areas that they cover. It is nothing new, as you already showed with Polycarp. As St. Irenaeus correctly points out, “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth”

 

[Des]

Hi Des , thanks for your reply. You are telling me what the Douay Rheims Bible commentary says, That’s an inferior Bible in Acts 2:38 to support baptismal regeneration: “Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They mistranslate the Greek word “metanoia” as do penance which is also the basis for the Catholic incorrect teaching on penance. There are other mistranslation too. In the newer Catholic Bibles it’s been corrected to “Repent” But regardless how they explain the above, What does this sentence mean to you? John 6:63, “--------The words I have spoken to you are Spirit -----”. So Jesus can’t be speaking about literally consuming His Flesh upon receiving communion Ed O.

Hey Ed. Without getting into translational errors of each Bible or going off topic even further with a debate on Penance, what does that have to do with what I said? You are questioning my answer based on a translation of another subject yet we are supposed to listen to your own personal and fallible private commentary, dealing with that verse? That commentary in the Douay is taken from St. Augustine’s thoughts on that verse and makes perfect sense. Unless you are seriously claiming that the Incarnation of Jesus in the flesh and the bodily resurrection has no profit? That is downright blasphemous. Dead flesh without the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ profits nothing.

Regarding: “The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life”.

By partaking in the Eucharist, we receive the Spirit, Grace and Life in it’s very fountain. This explains the importance of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in a worthy manner since transubstantiation non only means the Body and Blood of Christ but His Soul and Divinity as well. .

 

[Ginger2]

In post 982 you claimed that Martin Luther had used the same canon the Church used for 1000 years before him. That is factually incorrect, so you brought up the issue. I corrected your historical facts.

I see. Yes, I was responding to someone else, also. I did not bring up the issue of when or who determined the canon, but was to responding to claims Luther changed doctrines, SS, SF & the canon.

However, you are wrong. Luther did translate the Scriptures in the same manner as Jerome. He included all the same books as Jerome. He appended the Apocrypha just like Jerome. He included comments as to the authority of the books just like Jerome.

The seven apocryphal books were removed hundreds of years later due to high printing costs.

 

[Tomb54]

I never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out the traditions passed on by the Apostles in this document are all written in the Scriptures.

I thought I had already addresses the supposed line of succession.

1. **it doesn’t say Peter **passed on the chair to Linus. it says the Apostles, (probably referring to Peter and Paul in context) gave Linus a territory to head, not to be head over the whole church. It also says Polycarp was given a specific territory, too.

There is more, but that’s a start.

This is how the early church looked at Rome and the definition

Historically, the bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals of the pentarchy.

Primus inter pares (Latin), the first among equals, or first among peers is a phrase which indicates that a person is the most senior of a group of people sharing the same rank or office.[1]

When not used in reference to a specific title, it may indicate that the person so described is technically equal, but looked upon as an authority of special importance by their peers. In some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person described appears to be an equal, they actually are the group’s unofficial or hidden leader
(Emphasis mine)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ginger, I’m still waiting patiently for an answer to post 1007. As others noted, your attempt to put Protestant ‘choice’ of scriptural interpretation as equivalent to Catholics being DISOBEDIENT to Church teachings is not a valid answer unless you’re telling us that there is an authoritative ‘interpretation’ which ALL Protestants are aware of and which some deliberately deny.

And that doesn’t jibe with reality. . .for if you brought together a Lutheran to discuss John 6 and a Baptist to discuss it, neither one of them will say that “well, yes, position X is correct but I don’t like it so I prefer to teach/believe position Y knowing full well that X is the correct interpretation. . .”

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, I’m still waiting patiently for an answer to post 1007. …

This question had already been addressed:

If you are going to ignore my answers and ask the same questions in new ways, I see no point in repeating myself in vain.

I have shown that the essential doctrines of Christianity are spelled out clearly in the Holy Scriptures.

If some want to deny the Bible is the inerrant Word of God so they can make believe, that is there freewill choice given them by God.

Furthermore, I showed you all a sample of what I believe and included the Scriptures to support it And ask “which of these facts spelled out clearly in Scriptures do you feel I’ve misinterpreted?”

If I am in error on these Scriptures please point out the error:

I interpret Holy Scriptures to assert:

There is Only One God
ISAIAH
43:10 …Before me there was no God, and after me there will be none
Jesus is the One God
JOHN
10:33 The Jews answered him, “…you, although being a man, make yourself God.
The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to be God.

We all agree there is only One God, correct?

Only one Savior who is the one true God
ISAIAH 43:11 I am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior.
Only one Savior who is Jesus
LUKE 2:11 because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord,…

Do we all agree we have only One Savior, as well?

Only serve the one true God
Luke 4:8 You shall worship the Lord Your God and serve Him only
We serve Jesus
Col 3:24 it is the Lord Christ whom you serve

Do we all agree we should only serve the One True God, and no other?

Only worship the one true God
EXODUS 20:5….because I, YHWH, your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, …
Worship Jesus
MATTHEW
28:17 When they saw him (Jesus) they worshipped him;

Every Knee will bow to God
ISAIAH
45:23 ….that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess…
Every Knee will bow to Jesus
PHIL
2:10-11 …that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,…

God is the Creator of all things
ISAIAH 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth and my right hand spread out the heavens;
Jesus is the creator of all things
JOHN 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

And do we agree we should also worship only the One true God and no other?

PSALMS 36:9 For by you is the source of life.
Jesus is the source of life
John 5:21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.

Do we agree this One God we worship and serve is the source of life?

WHO IS THE FIRST AND LAST?
GOD
ISAIAH44:6 This is what YHWH has said, … “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”
JESUS
REVELATION
1:17-18 ….I am the first and the Last, ….and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever,… Obviously, Jesus is the one who became dead but lives forever.

…that He is the First and the Last?

Who is our Father?
Isaiah 9:6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

…our heavenly Father?

If anyone denies these clear tents of God’s Holy Word, then he is not a Christians. But may one day become one.

Again, I ask:
**Which of these facts spelled out clearly in Scriptures do you feel I’ve misinterpreted?

Which ones do Protestant Christians disagree with each other on?

With Catholics?**

 

[Ginger2]

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ

This says “when you read you can understand” what you are reading.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Why would Paul refer to writings that couldn’t be understood?

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures said?

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

It means some people will twist the Scriptures and there is nothing you can do to help them understand because God has hidden understanding from those who are condemned.

Likewise, only God can and does open a mind and heart to understanding.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

 

[Ginger2]

OK, this is interesting. So you’re saying that the Protestants who are epousing the interpretation that is 'wrong" (whichever it is) know that the other passage’s interpretation, or the other group of Protestants, is right but they go against it? But you still haven’t answered me. . .obviously one of the two 'opposite" interpretations is correct, and you’re saying that all the Protestants “know” which one is correct but that some deliberately choose the wrong one and hold it up as right. Can you explain why?

I think I misunderstood t understood your question…

I am not saying Protestants know their interpretation is wrong. On the contrary, most know what the Bible says, but believe the Bible is incorrect in some teachings. If the Protestant believed the Bible completely accurate, trust worthy and true, he would not blatantly disobey the word of God for fear of eternal damnation.

Likewise, most Catholics Know what the RC teaches, but disobey because they disagree with the teaching.

No Catholic would disobey crucial teachings that are consider mortal sins if they believe the RC was right because they would then also have to believe the disobedience would lead to lose of their salvation.

 

[twb1621]

Hi Tanturn ergo, Thanks for your reply. Your question concerning John 6, was Jesus speaking about eating His flesh literally or figuratively? If one stops to read John 6 at verse 59, like twb1621 does on post 965, the question isn’t answered. However, if you continue to read past verse 59 to verse 63, Jesus states" The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." To me, It seems very clear that the words that Jesus had just spoken are SPIRIT and are NOT to be taken LITERALLY. I see no reason for any question do you? ED O

RE: John CH6
Jesus was teaching and striving to convert the doubtful as many allude to. In these writings it shows Jesus seeking to strengthen the consideration of those weak in belief and of the necessity to have faith and accept Him and the Word He proclaims. As He goes deeper in this written gospel it is evident that He becomes more deliberate and assertive in referencing the bread and wine until He finally makes the definitive proclamation that it is His Flesh and Blood. This was the proclamation that finally drove the doubtful or weak in faith to walk away. Did Jesus consecrate the bread and wine at this time? Of course not. Perhaps because of the size of the crowd but more likely because the most important investment we make is in accepting Him through Faith. Had He consecrated bread and wine into His Body and Blood at that time they would have immediately considered He was speaking symbolically and accepted it at that without the faith it took for those who remained with such faith alone. But in taking this writing and relating it with the others it is evident that His proclamation was deliberate and His intended meaning firm. John 6 is the foundation for what was to become the consecration of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood supported in later verses.

John 6: “39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day." 41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” 42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.”

***60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. ***

Ed, You are trying very hard but your interpretation is misguided. I have copied verse 63 for you above for your reference. Jesus is not speaking of His flesh and His soul, He is saying Man’s spirit gives life and man’s flesh is of no avail. This is not in any way shape or form to be taken as He disclaims the bread and Wine as His Body and Blood. That is a major mistake to think it otherwise. You should have picked up on that when referring to the other verses I presented you. Refer to John Chapter 3 V6 below.

John CH3; 6 What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

Hi Tanturn ergo, Thanks for your reply. Your question concerning John 6, was Jesus speaking about eating His flesh literally or figuratively? If one stops to read John 6 at verse 59, like twb1621 does on post 965, the question isn’t answered. However, if you continue to read past verse 59 to verse 63, Jesus states" The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." To me, It seems very clear that the words that Jesus had just spoken are SPIRIT and are NOT to be taken LITERALLY. I see no reason for any question do you? ED O

Ed, again I ask you to please explain the verses in this and the previous post and were you see anything that discounts the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ.

continued from previous post…

***Matthew 26: “***26 14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

***Mark 14: *****22 7 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many. 25 Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” **

***Luke 22:*****14 When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. 15 He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover 5 with you before I suffer, 16 for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." 17 Then he took a cup, 6 gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” **

Luke 24:*** “******30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. 32 Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” 33 So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them 34 who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!” ***

***1 Corinthians 10:*****16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 of what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, 8 not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. 21 We cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. We cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he? **

***1 Corinthians 11:***22 Do we not have houses in which we can eat and drink? Or do we show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you. 23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.”

 

[twb1621]

I assume by diverse you mean a wide range of diverse opinions. **That is not what I said. **There is only one truth. That truth has been preserved for all generations in the Holy Bible ans states plainly that one must believe. Believing is only the first step, but you can take a second step until you take the first. And what we must believe are the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. How do I know this? Because the Bible says plainly all that one must believe and do according to God’s will.

So, what does the Bible say we must believe?

Jhn 8:24 — I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for **if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. **
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This is not to say that there is nothing more to being a Christian, but unless you believe that Jesus is who he said he is, you cannot by definition be a Christian.

Thanks for your explanation Ginger,
After reading your response, I do realize you did not specifically say “a wide range of diverse opinions” but you should be aware that is exactly what we have today with all the Christian Faiths, all based on separate opinions believing they all follow the “basic principles”. This is my objection to using such a term. It can be seriously misunderstood especially by those who are not as deeply familiar with Christianity. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[twb1621]

I think I misunderstood t understood your question…

I am not saying Protestants know their interpretation is wrong. On the contrary, most know what the Bible says, but believe the Bible is incorrect in some teachings.
If the Protestant believed the Bible completely accurate, trust worthy and true, he would not blatantly disobey the word of God for fear of eternal damnation.

That is one of the most disturbing assertions I have ever heard. Are you saying they knowingly and intentionally disregard some of scripture considering it incorrect?

Likewise, most Catholics Know what the RC teaches, but disobey because they disagree with the teaching.

Unfortunately the problem is many Catholics disobey Church teachings because they do not know scripture well enough. But certainly not because they feel the Bible is incorrect.

No Catholic would disobey crucial teachings that are consider mortal sins if they believe the RC was right because they would then also have to believe the disobedience would lead to lose of their salvation.

I make no excuses for Catholics who are ignorant to scripture by any means but there is a big difference between being knowledgably ignorant toward scripture and knowing scripture but denying its Truth or validity. It is sad to think anyone who even claims to be Christian would have such denials.

With that said, I ask you once again to review the posts linked here and tell me how you can deny the validity of the Catholic Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5623591&postcount=938

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5623595&postcount=939

 

[Ginger2]

… I ask you once again to review the posts linked here and tell me how you can deny the validity of the Catholic Church.

" … the Church Jesus founded …" has not ended but continues and will continue until his return. It is not confined within the walls of the Vatican but extends to the ends of the Earth.

Ginger

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I do thank you for your posts Ginger even though you really have not answered the question (are you sure you aren’t in the political field?)

Like the literary Lord Peter Wimsey, I find that even when a person will not answer a direct question directly, the more that person speaks in a conversation of his (or her) choice, the more you will learn about that person, even if the person (for whatever reason) doesn’t want you to know.

You have helped me to learn more about yourself and your fellow believers by your answers. I still don’t agree with you but I see that, in order to believe what you believe, you pretty much have to take the assumptions that you do.

May God bless you now and always.

But. . .just for fun. . .can you tell me whether it is the Lutheran (arguing for the Literal interpretation of John 6) or the nonDenom (arguing for a figurative interpretation of John 6) who is ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture and believing that Scripture is teaching incorrectly?) Because, of course, from what you tell me, one of them is doing exactly that. . .

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Tanturn ergo, Thanks for your reply. Your question concerning John 6, was Jesus speaking about eating His flesh literally or figuratively? If one stops to read John 6 at verse 59, like twb1621 does on post 965, the question isn’t answered. However, if you continue to read past verse 59 to verse 63, Jesus states" The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." To me, It seems very clear that the words that Jesus had just spoken are SPIRIT and are NOT to be taken LITERALLY. I see no reason for any question do you? ED O

One major problem with this kind of interpretation is that you have several verses (from 48 to 60) where Jesus hammers in the fact that we must eat HIS flesh and you are proposing that HALF a verse (v63) negates everything that He has said prior to that?

You are portraying a Jesus who does not know what He is on about. You are in fact saying that Jesus went " Eat my flesh but you will find that it is totally useless to do so".

Verse 63 talks about THE flesh, (which is a contrast to Spirit). In verses 48-60 He talks about MY FLESH. THE flesh is truly of no avail, but not HIS flesh. HIS flesh, according to Jesus Himself, gives life.

 

[benedictus2]

OK, but first you explain it so that everyone can understand. Oops, the Catholic Church says it is a mystery that cannot fully be understood by the human mind. It was unfair of me to ask you to do what the Pope cannot.

In light of this fact, why do you insist Protestants fully and perfectly understand this sacrament when the Pope has said it is not possible?

Perfect understanding is not a requirement to salvation.

For the record, I believe in the real presence.

We are not saying that the Protestants should perfectly UNDERSTAND it. We are merely proposing that you learn to take Jesus at His Word because He does not lie. There are things that we accept without completely comprehending them.

It is a mystery true, and the only reason we accept it is because JESUS SAID IT.

 

[benedictus2]

Luther didn’t create new doctrines. This has already been proven.

But here’s another proof:
"…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" - Martin Luther

I am convinced Catholics made up these stories to intentionally discredit ML. Funny thing is, is wasn’t necessary. We can always dig up dirt on anyone - we don’t need to embellish or make things up.

I am not digging dirt on Luther. So are you saying that Luther and the other fathers of the Protestant rebellion did not come up with Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? These are doctrines not held to by the Church prior to Luther.

Unless of course you do not consider these two solas as doctrines.