scripture question

[adrift]

No you have parsed out what he had said. He said more beyond what you quoted. You delete those words that Jesus spoke, for what reason??? You quoted verse 51, but the text goes on…

It is against forum rules to have large quotes. Otherwise I would have put in the whole Bible. I said

The chapter 6 must be taken as a whole not parsed out.

When I said it was parsed it was because you wanted to start it half way through. instead of addressing what was quoted you throw in a red herring of I didn’t quote all of it. Yes the text goes on and I had said that which you ignored.

His private words are right there in the text. John 6 Verses 60-71

He made an explanation…

Then He let followers go because they misunderstood Him? No that is not what Jesus did for it would make Him a liar. He did explain but that explanation came at the last supper. Just like then the saying is to hard so many return to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him.

 

[Bill_Pick]

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

 

[geometer]

Then He let followers go because they misunderstood Him? No that is not what Jesus did for it would make Him a liar. He did explain but that explanation came at the last supper. Just like then the saying is to hard so many return to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him.

You are very obstainant, you really reject those verses. Why can’t you prove you’re postion using the verses 60-71?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Never answer a question with a long sequence of questions…

That makes him right, right? The fathers who are unanimous in their teaching must have been a bunch of lazy illiterate dummies who never read the scriptures or could not understand them to come up with such an error.

 

[adrift]

You are very obstainant, you really reject those verses. Why can’t you prove you’re postion using the verses 60-71?

Where did I say I rejected any of the versus?

The word He has given us is Spirit and Flesh. He uses the same terminology in John 3:6 what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. It is contrasting the natural with the supernatural. But if you use JUST these versus than you are taking out of context. Consider the verb used in these verses that means eat it is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” Why would He do that if it meant only a symbol? Reading the entire chapter, it is clear that those who walked with Him no more understood well what He said. What He said at the Last Supper makes it clear to all that have not hardened their hearts that they understood what was said. This is my Body. This is my Blood was not this represents. There is no evidence that it was symbolic and was not thought so until centuries later.

 

[geometer]

That makes him right, right? The fathers who are unanimous in their teaching must have been a bunch of lazy illiterate dummies who never read the scriptures or could not understand them to come up with such an error.

You have the same script writer as grandfather. He said almost exactly the same thing. Both of you miss the point. You believe that you have good reason to ignore important parts of the text. I simply do not believe that what Jesus said should be ignored.

What do you think was the important thing that Jesus was trying to communicate?

Was he trying to tell people that human flesh is suitable food.

Or was he making the point that they should know his comming down from heaven.

He said he was the bread that came down from heaven. Isn’t this the good news of his miracle?

If eating human flesh is the good news, then please explain…

 

[adrift]

He said he was the bread that came down from heaven. Isn’t this the good news of his miracle?

If eating human flesh is the good news, then please explain…

He said more than that and meant more. If you stop here, you miss 90% of His miracle.

 

[jpaul1953]

It would be nice to come to an assent, but I get the feeling that the agreement you seek is one that concludes that my position is an absurdity and that all that the CC teaches is true…and if that is your goal, then you are right when you say that “There are times when we should realize when words are futile to achieve that purpose or success, when agreement will not be found through words.” Take care.

Radical,

First, your name just might say it all. Grandfather might not feel the way you said but I believe I might. I do believe in every doctrine/dogma of the Catholic Church. I don’t believe always when it comes to the Church’s traditions that can be adjusted, not speaking of oral tradition, which was prior to the writings of the NT and also the OT. It was passed down orally until written. I hope you understand that as much.

Second, I believe that the Church was only searching for the truth when all doctrines/dogmas were finalised by the Church’s interpretations of any/all bible verses.

This is absolutely not the truth, I would dare to say, when it comes to non-Catholic understanding of Scriptures. The intent is to be different, as yours is. You must disagree with us to stay non-Catholic.

That’s okay though each one has his/her right as a human being.

I have heard many opposing views of the Church and to me they don’t hold water. They are just non-Catholic views. I’m a Catholic by choice. No non-Catholic faith holds its own as does the Catholic. Just because one can’t see the truth, doesn’t mean one is in the truth. Non-Catholic congregations have no place in the Bible that gives them one word towards their own authority that I know of, but some non-Catholics will go on and on about how the Church’s authority is just dreamt up in Matt 16:15-20. Why should a Catholic give non-Catholic congregations validity when they won’t accept the Church’s validity from Christ, Himself.

Peter was given the keys in Matt 16, along with binding and loosing. The disciples (may have only been His apostles from earlier part of chapter) were given only the binding and loosing. That is a large difference, even though you might say it’s not. Please think this one through and don’t just read the non-Catholic conclusions. Jesus didn’t say keys to them because he gave them to Simon, now Peter or Kephas. Jesus is never at a lose for words so if He wanted everyone to have the keys, He would have said so.

Take care and have a good day

 

[grandfather]

Was he trying to tell people that human flesh is suitable food.

 

[grandfather]

First, your name just might say it all. Grandfather might not feel the way you said but I believe I might. I do believe in every doctrine/dogma of the Catholic Church. I don’t believe always when it comes to the Church’s traditions that can be adjusted, not speaking of oral tradition, which was prior to the writings of the NT and also the OT. It was passed down orally until written. I hope you understand that as much.

 

[jpaul1953]

You are very obstainant, you really reject those verses. Why can’t you prove you’re postion using the verses 60-71?

Geometer,

Back at you. Disprove what was said about the Eucharist by using the verses given to you as proof of the Real Prescence. Personally I don’t care what you believe. I have joy in something that you have none in. I am joyful to have Confession, Penance, and the Eucharist. Sorry for you that you don’t and can’t. Happy for us Catholics that do and can.

I am one growing tired Catholic listening to you non-Catholics spitting rhetoric. I’ve heard you non-Catholics drill not so strong Catholics into believing your own private revelations that somehow supercede the Holy Spirit’s total influence on Catholic understanding. So, why should I care. Jesus said if they are not ready, don’t waste your words. Dust off your sandals and be gone. That’s what I am doing right now. I normally just read and move on to the next non-Catholics remarks to see if there is any change, but there isn’t.

May God bless you with the truth, if you are so willing.

jpaul1953

 

[jpaul1953]

grandfather:
Grandfather,

I greatly appreciate your knowledge that covers certain areas I lack in. And yes, I too tire from some non-Catholics belligerence. I believe Christ told us what to do in this case, dust off our sandals and be on our way.

You save me a lot of time reading.

Thanks.

jpaul1953

 

[Radical]

Radical,

…Second, I believe that the Church was only searching for the truth when all doctrines/dogmas were finalised by the Church’s interpretations of any/all bible verses.

This is absolutely not the truth, I would dare to say, when it comes to non-Catholic understanding of Scriptures. The intent is to be different, as yours is. You must disagree with us to stay non-Catholic.

But surely you must realize that we do this b/c we believe that the CC has added error to the truth and our disagreement results from our belief that we are searching for truth.

Why should a Catholic give non-Catholic congregations validity when they won’t accept the Church’s validity from Christ, Himself.

First b/c God has given those non-Catholics the Holy Spirit too. Second, the Catholic claim of validity is like any other church’s claim to validity in that it is dependent on the particular interpretation of scripture (and maybe tradition) by the church claiming the validity.

Peter was given the keys in Matt 16, along with binding and loosing. The disciples (may have only been His apostles from earlier part of chapter) were given only the binding and loosing. That is a large difference, even though you might say it’s not. Please think this one through and don’t just read the non-Catholic conclusions. Jesus didn’t say keys to them because he gave them to Simon, now Peter or Kephas. Jesus is never at a lose for words so if He wanted everyone to have the keys, He would have said so.

Well I have seen Catholics make your argument (and others) but I can’t help wondering why, on the two occasions that the disciples argued over who would be the greatest, Jesus never specified Peter…if, as you say, he was never at a loss for words. And why were the disciples even having this argument if they all knew that Peter was supreme?

Take care

 

[grandfather]

Well I have seen Catholics make your argument (and others) but I can’t help wondering why, on the two occasions that the disciples argued over who would be the greatest, Jesus never specified Peter…if, as you say, he was never at a loss for words. And why were the disciples even having this argument if they all knew that Peter was supreme?

Take care

Radical,
Can you help out by finding the verses in which the apostles argued over who would be the greatest?

 

[Radical]

Radical,
Can you help out by finding the verses in which the apostles argued over who would be the greatest?

Luke 9: 43 And they were all amazed at the greatness of God. While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it. 46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all–he is the greatest.” 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. 24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

And of course, there is this incident:

Mark 10: Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” 41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[fbl9]

Luke 9: 43 And they were all amazed at the greatness of God. While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it. 46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all–he is the greatest.” 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. 24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

And of course, there is this incident:

Mark 10: Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” 41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[grandfather]

Luke 9: 43

Luke 22: 19
And of course, there is this incident:

Mark 10: ."

Thank you. When we look at the events of the gospel, Jesus with His apostles, where is it that Jesus makes unique promises to Peter?

 

[Radical]

Thank you. When we look at the events of the gospel, Jesus with His apostles, where is it that Jesus makes unique promises to Peter?

There are a number of such instances…both good and bad. Peter is presented as being the most outspoken of the 12, often being the first to speak or the first to act. At times he got it right and at other times he over estimated his abilities (ie Matt 26) and got it wrong.

So here is one unique promise Christ made to Peter:

*Matt 26: Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” 34 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” 35 But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same. *

Matt 16 also offers unique exchanges:

*15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” *

Here we see Peter getting it very right (when influenced by the Father) and then getting it very wrong (when influenced, apparently, by Satan). Being first to speak does make one a leader of sorts, but does not make one supreme (especially when he bats but .500 as in Matt 16). Peter is repeatedly singled out, but when the topic is “who is the greatest among the 12”, he isn’t…and he surely should have been singled out if he was supreme among the 12.

 

[grandfather]

There are a number of such instances…both good and bad. Peter is presented as being the most outspoken of the 12, often being the first to speak or the first to act. At times he got it right and at other times he over estimated his abilities (ie Matt 26) and got it wrong.

So here is one unique promise Christ made to Peter:

*Matt 26: Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” 34 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” 35 But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same. *

Matt 16 also offers unique exchanges:

*15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” *

Here we see Peter getting it very right (when influenced by the Father) and then getting it very wrong (when influenced, apparently, by Satan). Being first to speak does make one a leader of sorts, but does not make one supreme (especially when he bats but .500 as in Matt 16). Peter is repeatedly singled out, but when the topic is “who is the greatest among the 12”, he isn’t…and he surely should have been singled out if he was supreme among the 12.

I think you forgot about some other exchanges.

 

[Soutane]

he made no effort to answer their question as to “how” this would be given…Jesus knew that they were confused and offended and didn’t offer a further explanation or make an effort to win them back. John makes it clear (by stressing it thrice) that they left b/c they weren’t drawn to Jesus by the Father and that they were not true believers in Christ.

and he used that term on other occasions involving figurative speech

They couldn’t have understood the “meaning” that the CC declares for Christ. The CC thinks Christ was talking about eating transubstantiated bread (now body) and that whole conept had not been invented or described by anyone at that time. They ask “how” can he give us his flesh to eat…and Jesus does not give an explanation of transubstantiation. They walked away w/o rejecting the CC understanding of a RP b/c that understanding was never presented.

what those ancient Jews didn’t believe was that Jesus was the Christ

You have it exactly backwards. Material consists of atoms joined into molecules. The problem that I have with the CC idea is that they want to claim a real bodily presence. A body is a material thing, yet no fleshy material (atoms and molecules of muscle etc.) is involved. To claim a real bodily presence, a real body should be present.

You are confusing Protestants with gnostics. All Protestants that I know would take God at his word when he declared that what he created was good…If you want to find an example of a moral physical act being treated as an immoral physical act, look to the CC. Sexual realtions between a husband and a wife is a good thing, yet some how the venerators of Mary would be offended by the idea of Mary having sex with Joseph. That physical act would somehow impugn Mary’s purity, yet such an act between a husband and wife is declared to be a good thing…a blessing from God.

All according to your personal and quite fallible interpretation of scripture which is the Protestant’s downfall having resulted in 33,000+ and counting heretical protestant eclaisial bodies with no authority,nor infallibilty,and an unlimited spectrum of scripture interpretations.Christ prayed that we would be ONE.Indeed.