Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hisalone said:
No my friend Christ gave up His flesh that we might have life in the spirit, His flesh crucified is what gives us life in that way His flesh is food indeed.
Click to expand...
To You and Benjamin:

Why does it have to be an either/or position? Why does it have to be either His flesh or His spirit. As Catholics, we take a both/and approach. Food for thought.
 
I already said It is the Spirit IN the Flesh. So I agree with you hundred percent.
 
Benjamin8o8 said:
CORRECT!!!👍 but if you are a non-Catholic then unfortunutaly you can`t recive His flesh, which is food indeed.
Click to expand...
It is His Spirit that gives life.

What is born of flesh is flesh what is born of spirit is spirit.
 
broski234 said:
Well now, here we have a little contradiction of what you said in post #108. You said the spiritual is not symbolic. But here you are using v. 63 to show Jesus was speaking symbolically. In v. 51, Jesus says “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross! Was that symbolic? If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic…It wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there…It was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood. Jesus is clearly talking about the flesh taht He gave for the life of the world. He did that on the cross. So did Jesus give His real flesh and blood for the life of the world, or was it only His symbolic flesh and symbolic blood? The spiritual is just as real as the physical. Right? Of course it is.
Click to expand...
Jesus was speaking of a spiritual reality which you refuse to see.
Open the eyes of your spirit.
 
  1. God’s Church was referred to as ‘‘catholic’’ for the first time in the 1st century in a letter by St. Ireneus who used the word meaning ‘‘universal’’. The disciples of the apostles (the early Church fathers) quickly adopted the word to distinguish it from other pagan churches.
  2. The Catholic Church survived until 382 A.D. without a canon of scripture published as the Bible that we have today.
  3. It was a bunch of Catholics who were guided by the Holy Spirit and published the canon of scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
  4. Sacred Scripture and Tradition was taught as a whole with the same interpretation for centuries until Martin Luther added the word ‘‘alone’’ to the King James Version 1600.
  5. Martin Luther never disputed the interpretation of John Ch. 6.
  6. The King James Version 1600 contains a calendar of all the Saint Feast Days and all 72 books.
  7. Martin Luther and not Jesus or his apostles, is the one who taught ‘‘sola fide’’ or ‘‘faith alone’’ which you seem to be the fruit of.
  8. No where in the Bible does it say what you or Martin Luther teach. Jesus didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ the apostles didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ and none of the early Church fathers taught ‘‘faith alone’’. Not until Luther in 1600 A.D. who was an excommunicated Catholic monk.
  9. The authority to ‘‘bind and loose’’, including the interpretation of Tradition or Sacred Scripture, was passed down from Jesus himself to the Apostles who passed down the same authority to today’s Magisterium.
  10. There was a living Catholic Church between the time the disciples of Jesus’ apostles taught and the Bible was published with 72 books (not 66) and John Ch. 6 was taken as literal then and it is taken as literal now.
I will also pray that you put your pride aside and ask God to open your mind and realize that what you’ve been taught and what you teach now is what was warned about in Sacred Scripture.

Now then…would you like to answer my questions from the earlier post or should I just keep repeating them to you?

Peace.

Can you refute any of these facts?
 
Hisalone said:
Jesus was speaking of a spiritual reality which you refuse to see.
Open the eyes of your spirit.
Click to expand...
You did not address my questions. And you used v. 63 to show how He was speaking symbolically did you?

May the scales be removed from your eyes.
 
I think it would be pretty foolish to say that Jesus’ flesh was of no avail! Afterall, wasn’t His flesh what He sacrificed for the life of the world? The flesh that Jesus was talking about is the carnal flesh of man. Not His flesh. See 1Corinthians 2:14 and 3:4.
 
JonNC said:
There is your proof of the real presence!!

Jon
Click to expand...
The problem with the proof is while one can muster a preponderance of evidence, one has to have an understanding of the Catholic view as well as an understanding of the Protestant view(s) to understand what divides the two sides. I think that the Protestants start with a negative view of the priesthood which makes it impossible for them–as a body–to accept the Catholic position. Luther’s view, even Calvin’s view
is not that far removed from the Catholic view, but most Protestants take a rationalist view like Zwingli’s which weds them to a particular philosophical approach, one which most are unaware, that would be nominalism.
 
broski234 said:
You did not address my questions. And you used v. 63 to show how He was speaking symbolically did you?

May the scales be removed from your eyes.
Click to expand...
I was about to really then Benjamin insults me.

There is a difference between a spiritual reality something that really takes place in the spiritual or unseen world and a symbol. A symbol represents something but is not that something. v63 is not a symbol it is a spiritual reality.
 
RobbyS said:
The problem with the proof is while one can muster a preponderance of evidence, one has to have an understanding of the Catholic view as well as an understanding of the Protestant view(s) to understand what divides the two sides. I think that the Protestants start with a negative view of the priesthood which makes it impossible for them–as a body–to accept the Catholic position. Luther’s view, even Calvin’s view
is not that far removed from the Catholic view, but most Protestants take a rationalist view like Zwingli’s which weds them to a particular philosophical approach, one which most are unaware, that would be nominalism.
Click to expand...
If you are accusing me, as a Lutheran, of taking a more Catholic view of the Eucharist, I plead guilty.

Jon
 
Hisalone said:
I was about to really then Benjamin insults me.

There is a difference between a spiritual reality something that really takes place in the spiritual or unseen world and a symbol. A symbol represents something but is not that something. v63 is not a symbol it is a spiritual reality.
Click to expand...
I’m still waiting for you to address my questions.
 
elijio said:
It goes on to say:

John 6:53-60 (King James Version)

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat (’‘food’’ in the RSV) indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Question: Where does it say what you say? ‘‘It is not symbolic it is spiritual.’’ Chapter and verse, please.

Peace.
Click to expand...
John 6:63 confirms what Hisalone was saying; only don’t take anyones word for; take the Lord’s.
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

Jesus cannot make the context of all the other passages prior to verse 63 any clearer.

If Jesus had said it like this: “It is my Flesh that gives life; the Spirit profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are Flesh and Blood”, then you would have a valid point worth perusing further.
 
Benjamin8o8 said:
  1. God’s Church was referred to as ‘‘catholic’’ for the first time in the 1st century in a letter by St. Ireneus who used the word meaning ‘‘universal’’. The disciples of the apostles (the early Church fathers) quickly adopted the word to distinguish it from other pagan churches.
I believe in the catholic “universal” congregation.
  1. The Catholic Church survived until 382 A.D. without a canon of scripture published as the Bible that we have today.
The word of God was used in the OT to straighten out the crooked places of the Jews. When they drifted or wandered God used His word to get them back on track. What makes you think that
  1. The Christians didnt wander or drift off track?
  2. That God would use a different method for correction?
    The first couple of generations of Christians went to Synagogues to learn the Jewish scriptures.
    Peter in his letter gave Pauls letter the full authority of scriptures. Pauls letters were copied and sent to various church communities and were revered. The writtings of te Apostles were also well read and regarded Matthew, Mark John, James, Jude and of course Peter and Paul. The scriptures were an intregal part of the early church community.
  1. It was a bunch of Catholics who were guided by the Holy Spirit and published the canon of scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
Small c catholics collected the writttings of Jews and put them together.
  1. Sacred Scripture and Tradition was taught as a whole with the same interpretation for centuries until Martin Luther added the word ‘‘alone’’ to the King James Version 1600.
Yet it has always been the word of God tat is used for correction. As was done during the Reformation.
  1. Martin Luther never disputed the interpretation of John Ch. 6.
When did you start relying on Luther for interpretation?
  1. The King James Version 1600 contains a calendar of all the Saint Feast Days and all 72 books.
Sola Deo Gloria
  1. Martin Luther and not Jesus or his apostles, is the one who taught ‘‘sola fide’’ or ‘‘faith alone’’ which you seem to be the fruit of.
Have you ever read Luthers struggle with faith and of his pilgramage to Rome?
  1. No where in the Bible does it say what you or Martin Luther teach. Jesus didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ the apostles didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ and none of the early Church fathers taught ‘‘faith alone’’. Not until Luther in 1600 A.D. who was an excommunicated Catholic monk.
Again read Luthers pilgramage to Rome in order to understand the context. A salvation of works was commonly believed.
  1. The authority to ‘‘bind and loose’’, including the interpretation of Tradition or Sacred Scripture, was passed down from Jesus himself to the Apostles who passed down the same authority to today’s Magisterium.
You say so I dont believe it.
I believe the Roman Church squandered its authority and has lost much of what was given it.
  1. There was a living Catholic Church between the time the disciples of Jesus’ apostles taught and the Bible was published with 72 books (not 66) and John Ch. 6 was taken as literal then and it is taken as literal now.
John 6 is to be taken spiritually as was its original intent.

I will also pray that you put your pride aside and ask God to open your mind and realize that what you’ve been taught and what you teach now is what was warned about in Sacred Scripture.

I am where I am because God has placed me here.

Now then…would you like to answer my questions from the earlier post or should I just keep repeating them to you?

Peace.

Can you refute any of these facts?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top