Protestantism summed up in a simple verse from scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumspirospero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dirtydog:
Where do you get that? Everywhere I look, it is trogo.

from greekbible.com

o trwgwn mou thn sarka kai pinwn mou to aima ecei zwhn aiwnion, kagw anasthsw auton th escath hmera:

trwgw,v {tro’-go}
  1. to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds) 1a) of animals feeding 1b) of men 2) to eat
You are talking of the Jn 6 passages, yes, he uses “trogo,” he uses it six times, and Mt uses it once in Ch 24. I was believe I was referring to the Mt, Mk, Lk passages, and not John. It means to gnaw etc., when used of animals; when used of men it means simply to eat, as your definition above shows. It is a context driven word.

Bill
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
Oh it is very ironic…considering protestants believe in literal interpretations and rely solely on scripture to defend their points of view…this is very out of character for protestants who are sola scriptura by their very beliefs…how can they, by nature of their core beliefs, use something outside of scripture to defend their position???
The irony is that you show that you do not understand what is meant by sola scriptura; that is the only irony I see.

Bill
 
40.png
Milliardo:
Again, sonseeker, let me ask you: do you think the early Church Fathers got it wrong in their understanding of John 6? After all, such men as St. Polycarp were taught by the Apostles themselves. St.Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John himself, and in turn he taught St. Ireneaus of Lyons. So, as I asked, do you mean to tell us here, by your stubborness, that Protestantism is far more superior than the early Fathers, and indeed even the Apostles themselves who taught them? Do you want to tell us that Protestantism’s interpretation is better than the Apostle John, who wrote the Gospel, and who taught these very men? Please answer my points.
Yes. I do not see where transubstantiation is taught in the Scripture. It is a “development” of doctrine. If it is as important as you claim, God would have ensured that it was spelled out; as I said before, it is not explained. Jesus Himself says that God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17). The only truth He ever refers to is the truth of God; nowhere does He call us to put faith in men, as we are men, but we are told to believe God. I do believe that those you mentioned, developed the doctrine; they were not taught the doctrine by any of the apostles. And there are many others who believe that also.

Bill
 
40.png
sonseeker:
when used of men it means simply to eat, as your definition above shows. It is a context driven word.
No, that’s not what the definition shows. 1b refers back to 1, not to 2. 2 is simply a secondary usage. Also, I wholeheartedly agree that it is context driven, as are all words. The context it is used in is certainly not symbolic.
 
40.png
sonseeker:
I do believe that those you mentioned, developed the doctrine; they were not taught the doctrine by any of the apostles. And there are many others who believe that also.
Bill
Classic denial. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
sonseeker:
Actually it took about an hour; I always enjoy explaining God’s word.
Bill
The Word tells us, “my body is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed.”

What you attempted to explain is called, “manipulative grammar 101”. :whistle:
 
40.png
Thal59:
I disagree. All wisdom comes from God, not from Scriptures. Indeed, most Protestants I know offer a prayer to the Lord asking for wisdom before they read the scriptures. If scriptures could impart wisdom, there would not be the multitude of interpretations held by the multitude of Protestant denominations.
As far as Thal59’s two questions at the end of his post # 58, I have the Spirit of Christ, indeed the whole Trinity dwelling within me; therefore, I fear nothing.<<
If this were true, you would recognize the Lord’s words in exactly the same context as the church fathers, wouldn’t you?

Thal59
Re-read 2 Tim 3:15; it says “the scriptures are able to make you wise” to salvation; your disagreement is with God.

You seem to by saying that the only ones who have access to the truth, or, who indeed have the truth at all, are the church fathers; that is not true. 1 Cor 2:16 says that the believer has the mind of Christ (cf Jn 15:15).

Bill
 
40.png
RyanL:
ok, i’ll be honest. you’re dead wrong, and this is perilous to your eternal soul.
I agree; that is why I am so ardent in my belief.

Bill
 
40.png
dirtydog:
No, that’s not what the definition shows. 1b refers back to 1, not to 2. 2 is simply a secondary usage. Also, I wholeheartedly agree that it is context driven, as are all words. The context it is used in is certainly not symbolic.
Forgive me, you are right. Gnaw at the flesh then.

Bill
 
40.png
Mickey:
The Word tells us, “my body is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed.”

What you attempted to explain is called, “manipulative grammar 101”. :whistle:
John 6:63
63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.:hmmm:
 
FWIW, several people here have completely hijacked this thread. It was about 2 Timothy 4:3-4 originally.

If you would like to discuss other topics (such as the Eucharist or Sola Scriptura) then please start another thread.

Thank you.

Peace,
javelin
 
40.png
sonseeker:
John 6:63
63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.:hmmm:
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them, rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. **In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father **(cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65). 👍

Catholic Answers
 
Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top