Actually, those who leave the Catholic Church for Protestant churches do so because someone in the Protestant church they choose to join has told them what they want to hear. And it isn’t always Scripture. It can be a comment as simple as “We allow our members to wear shorts and tank tops” if the Catholic has an issue with having to dress in their “Sunday Best” each week. Or “We have Krispy Kreme doughnuts.” (I personally witnessed that one.)I think most Catholics leave over issues that originate below the waist.
Keep treading! Perhaps the current will pull you the rest of the way! You will be in our prayers.I have been out in the deep water of the Tiber, treading water, for a few years. I continue to pray and study.
This was posted on these forums before. Isn’t this the same lecture where he teaches people that Clement was the 2nd Pope instead of Linus? He misquotes Irenaeus to say this in order to match the quote from Tertullian who actually did state that Clement was the 2nd Bishop of Rome. I remember being completely unable to substantiate most of the claims he makes in regards to the artwork. I would be a little skeptical of this lecture and the teaching in it. There are better sources out there to learn about the early church.I hope you will like this talk from a former Lutheran…William Marshner…
I made no such contrast. I believe you are looking for “natural” verses “spiritual.” Spiritual things can also be literal and even physical, but never natural. If they were natural, they would ceased to be spiritual.This formulation contains a fatal mistake made by many evangelicals. It creates a false dichotomy between what is “spiritual” and what is “literal”. It suggests that something which is “spiritual” is not actually physically real, or does not have evidence in the tangible plane. The word “spiritual” is translated to mean “figurative” rather than “real” (tangible).
If you search for Jesus in this world, you will not find Him naturally, or physically, or even literally. Why not? Because He is present sitting at the right hand of Majesty in a spiritual place called Heaven. He has been there since His ascension. However, in His stead, the Holy Spirit has come. He came NOT to dwell in bread. He came to dwell in men’s hearts, sealing us unto the day of our physical redemption.This statement denies that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, and in the authority He has appointed over His One Body, the Church.
No, I meant literal (physical) vs “spiritual” (non-physical).I made no such contrast. I believe you are looking for “natural” verses “spiritual.” Spiritual things can also be literal and even physical, but never natural. If they were natural, they would ceased to be spiritual.
And why cannot both things be true? This is the false dichotomy I was referencing. Was Jesus physically present in the upper room with the Apostles? Was He physically present with the Disciples on the road to Emmaus? It does not seem that Him having a spiritual body causes the natural body to cease to exist.If you search for Jesus in this world, you will not find Him naturally, or physically, or even literally. Why not? Because He is present sitting at the right hand of Majesty in a spiritual place called Heaven.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Both things are true.He came NOT to dwell in bread. He came to dwell in men’s hearts, sealing us unto the day of our physical redemption.
It is not about “admitting” or not, it is about a different conception of the process of salvation. We believe that our faith is completed with works.works play a huge part of the justifying work or Catholics, but they hate to admit it.
All of these events mentioned here were before His ascension. We have not yet had a second coming of Christ. He is still ascended and sitting at the right hand of the Father. If we treat His speech literally in John 6, we must also treat it literally in the words of John the Baptist who said, “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Was Jesus a literal Lamb? was he ever? no… yet John insist on calling him the Lamb of God. You insist literalness in one passage but must agree to a metaphor in the Baptist declaration. On what contextual bases is one literal while the other not?Was He physically present with the Disciples on the road to Emmaus? It does not seem that Him having a spiritual body causes the natural body to cease to exist.
We believe He is physically present in the Eucharist because that is what He taught, and what was passed down to us from the Apostles.
Yes, Jesus was the literal lamb of God. He was the pure unblemished sacrifice for our sins. He was literally slain. Or are you saying He only metaphorically died on the cross?If we treat His speech literally in John 6, we must also treat it literally in the words of John the Baptist who said, “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Was Jesus a literal Lamb? was he ever? no… yet John insist on calling him the Lamb of God. You insist literalness in one passage but must agree to a metaphor in the Baptist declaration. On what contextual bases is one literal while the other not?
Jesus was never a literal Lamb. yet the (spiritual) truth that he was to suffer in the same manner as a spotless male, lamb, is all true.Yes, Jesus was the literal lamb of God.
I agree that there is a metaphorical as well as a physical aspect to it. He was not a πρόβατον in physical form, but he was physically sacrificed as the lamb for our sins. He did not just suffer a “spiritual truth” on the cross. He have all of HImself, literally.Jesus was never a literal Lamb. yet the (spiritual) truth that he was to suffer in the same manner as a spotless male, lamb, is all true.
Yes, we are in agreement on this point.But Lamb’s blood could never take away the sins of the world. The blood of bulls and goats etc. were only used as types and shadows pointing to a higher spiritual truth.
He was not physically taken to the temple, have His throat cut and the blood drained and thrown upon the corners of the altar, but He was handed over by the temple authorities so that the Romans could cause the shedding of blood, without which there is no remission of sins.Jesus, much like a Lamb, died a sinner’s death. Yet John’s speech requires an interpretation other than to go literal here. why? Here’s a hermeneutic rule: When the plain sense does not make sense, you are in a figure of speech.
His mother did not give her life for the sins of the world. In any case, a Lamb is a young sheep, yearling or less, and they are not ready to give birth. It is not a “hard sell” for me, but I understand how it is difficult for those who place a false dichotomy between “literal” and “spiritual”.If you insist on making John the Baptist words understood literally, this becomes a hard sell for you. It would mean that his mother was also a Lamb… it would all be nonsensical garbage.
This approach creates a false dichotomy between literal and spiritual. There are spiritual realities that are “real” (not just symbolic). Jesus is the Lamb of God, and His “literal” blood was shed for our sins.This same principle apples in John 6, except that in this passage Jesus actually tells John’s readers his speech was SPIRITUAL (not literal.)
Those that stayed did not yet understand how it was that Jesus was the manna that came down from heaven. But they stayed because they knew He had the words of eternal life, even if they didnt’ make rational sense at the time. Jesus made no effort to correct them in their misunderstanding. Why? Because that was what he meant.Thus we can understand why some disciples refused to stick it out. They insisted on interpreting his words literal. It causes a breakdown and ultimately a relationship break.