So, i hear...

[MyRdmrLvs]

That’s an entirely new spin on that passage. The old Protestant spin was, ‘He knew who didn’t believe to begin with.’

Did Christ not teach the importance of the Shepherd going for the one lost sheep, yet we are to believe He let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him NO MORE? That’s why He turned to His Apostles and asked, will you go away also.

There was a progression of Christ’s revealing Himself, in His time. He was not going to sacrifce many disciples to remain hidden. Read chapter 7 and see that things were beginning to escalate.

Christ had the power to be present and withhold His identity, so that even those who knew Him would not recognize Him. Yet we’re to believe Christ let many disciples leave Him and walk with Him NO MORE?

Creative, but no, I don’t believe that.

Are you saying I have my protestant talking points all wrong? no need to post a reply to this but could you just consider whether you dont believe it because its not plausible or because you have a doctrine that hangs on it?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Doki in blue;

That’s an entirely new spin on that passage. (And this last statement seems quite unkind.) The old Protestant spin was, ‘He knew who didn’t believe to begin with.’

Did Christ not teach the importance of the Shepherd going for the one lost sheep (that’s what Jesus said), yet we are to believe He let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him NO MORE? (Any evidence they came back?) That’s why He turned to His Apostles and asked, will you go away also. I’m not understanding your point.
There was a progression of Christ’s revealing Himself, in His time. He was not going to sacrifce many disciples to remain hidden. What does this mean? Didn’t Jesus say, Many are called but few are chosen’? Read chapter 7 and see that things were beginning to escalate.

Christ had the power to be present and withhold His identity, so that even those who knew Him would not recognize Him. (True. I wonder if He’s in many protestant churches and some catholics don’t see Him there?) Yet we’re to believe Christ let many disciples leave Him and walk with Him NO MORE? Isn’t that what the Bible says?

Creative, but no, I don’t believe that. Believe what?

You’re right, ‘spin’ was unkind, and I apologize. It’s a new interpretation…

Please read the post I quoted and you’ll see I was responding to the creative idea that Christ let those disciples in John 6:66 leave Him and walk with Him no more because He was not ready to reveal Himself.

He let them walk because they rejected His teaching. He did not explain a symbolism, this was verified when He turned to His Apostles and asked, ‘will you go away also’.

Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Your reference to Matthew 20:16 cannot be taken alone and relied upon as in full context. It is the end of a parable.

Who was first chosen by God? The Jews. Who was the last? The Gentiles. Together, many are called, but few are chosen. The Jews were grieved at the salvation of the Gentiles. Read the parable with this thought in mind.

I think you’re confusing my point about the disciples that left Him and walked with Him no more. I have explained it above.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying I have my protestant talking points all wrong? no need to post a reply to this but could you just consider whether you dont believe it because its not plausible or because you have a doctrine that hangs on it?

Are you of the belief it’s plausible or does your rejection of a Catholic interpretation, that supports doctrine, hang on it?

If you wish to discuss John 6 in detail, start a new thread. I’ll join it, but I will not stay in a discussion where I spend time explaining point by point only to receive a response of ‘no, that’s wrong’. Oh, and be warned, I will post many scriptures on the subject, from all parts of the Bible. Remember, I say to read in context, one must read scriptures within scriptures. If that’s too much a waste of your time, you might as well not start the thread.

 

[Dokimas]

You’re right, ‘spin’ was unkind, and I apologize. It’s a new interpretation…

Please read the post I quoted and you’ll see I was responding to the creative idea that Christ let those disciples in John 6:66 leave Him and walk with Him no more because He was not ready to reveal Himself.

He let them walk because they rejected His teaching. He did not explain a symbolism, this was verified when He turned to His Apostles and asked, ‘will you go away also’.

Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Your reference to Matthew 20:16 cannot be taken alone and relied upon as in full context. It is the end of a parable.

Who was first chosen by God? The Jews. Who was the last? The Gentiles. Together, many are called, but few are chosen. The Jews were grieved at the salvation of the Gentiles. Read the parable with this thought in mind.

I think you’re confusing my point about the disciples that left Him and walked with Him no more. I have explained it above.

I think I understood but don’t understand why the point. How did it fit in? Are you correcting someone? I’m just confused, sorry to say. I must have missed something.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think I understood but don’t understand why the point. How did it fit in? Are you correcting someone? I’m just confused, sorry to say. I must have missed something.

Read post 827, but start with the post I quoted and see specifically the last sentence claiming Christ let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more, to keep His real identity hidden. That is incorrect, to say the least. They left Christ because they found His words too hard. Had Christ been speaking symbolism, He would have explained the symbolism to stop them from leaving Him and walking with Him no more. The point being, Christ spoke literally in John 6.

 

[CMatt25]

Christ spoke literally in John 6.

John 6:37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.

Someone ought to tell the Church then to open up Communion to all who come to Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

John 6:37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.

Someone ought to tell the Church then to open up Communion to all who comes to Christ.

To anyone that comes, or to those who come because they believe He is who He said He is?

 

[CMatt25]

To anyone that comes, or to those who come because they believe He is who He said He is?

Well literally Christ said everyone whom His Father gives to Him will come to Him. But the Church prevents plenty of people who believe he is Christ from receiving Him

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

John 6:37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.

Someone ought to tell the Church then to open up Communion to all who come to Christ.

Do you realize that the Church is actually looking out for the interest of everyone’s salvation by having people prove themselves prior to receiving communion, which is the body and blood of Christ?

**1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. **

So, should the Catholic Church say, yea whoever wants communion can have it, if they don’t discern the body of the Lord, that’s there problem…

 

[CMatt25]

Yes I know the Church’s interpretation of Paul and what she says she is doing. But if Jn 6:37 is literal as you said it is, I believe the Church should do what Jesus said to do in Jn 6:37 and then leave it to Him to judge whether another’s heart is worthy or not. You know the prayer, Lord I am not worthy to receive but only say the word and I shall be healed? You or I or the priest can’t determine if someone has been healed. Plenty of people discern the body or His sacrifice of His body and yet are denied.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes I know the Church’s interpretation of Paul and what she says she is doing. But if Jn 6:37 is literal as you said it is, I believe the Church should do what Jesus said to do in Jn 6:37 and then leave it to Him to judge whether another’s heart is worthy or not. You know the prayer, Lord I am not worthy to receive but only say the word and I shall be healed? You or I or the priest can’t determine if someone has been healed. Plenty of people discern the body or His sacrifice of His body and yet are denied.

But Christ gave the men of the Church the authority to bind and loose and forgive sins or retain sins.

You can’t just pull out one verse and override others.

Let’s look at the passage and see where Paul gets his teaching from.

**1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. **

Paul was not an eye witness to the life and sufferings of Christ. Did Paul lie? No, Paul received of the Lord through the men of the Church and the oral tradition.

 

[SyCarl]

Do you realize that the Church is actually looking out for the interest of everyone’s salvation by having people prove themselves prior to receiving communion, which is the body and blood of Christ?

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

So, should the Catholic Church say, yea whoever wants communion can have it, if they don’t discern the body of the Lord, that’s there problem…

Verse 28 as you quote it appears to be only in the Douay-Rheims version. All the other versions say to examine ourselves. This is made clearer in verse 30 where we are told to examine ourselves rather than the church examining us.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
(1Co 11:27-31 NASB)

 

[SyCarl]

Paul was not an eye witness to the life and sufferings of Christ. Did Paul lie? No, Paul received of the Lord through the men of the Church and the oral tradition.

That is not how Paul himself says he learned things.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Gal 1:11-12 NASB)

 

[CMatt25]

Prod, so if a man examines himself and prays before Communion and receives the word calling him to His Supper, we judge him unworthy? I can’t do that. I don’t even know how the priests can judge what is in someone’s heart at that moment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, so if a man examines himself and prays before Communion and receives the word calling him to His Supper, we judge him unworthy? I can’t do that.

(IGNT+) δοκιμαζετωG1381 [G5720] δεG1161 BUT LET PROVE ανθρωποςG444 A MAN εαυτονG1438 HIMSELF, καιG2532 AND ουτωςG3779 THUS εκG1537 OF τουG3588 THE αρτουG740 BREAD εσθιετωG2068 [G5720] LET HIM EAT, καιG2532 AND εκG1537 OF τουG3588 THE ποτηριουG4221 CUP πινετωG4095 [G5720] LET HIM DRINK.

G1381
δοκιμάζω
dokimazō
dok-im-ad’-zo
From G1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication to approve: - allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-) prove, try.

‘Examine’ is a part of the definition of ‘dokimazo’, just as is ‘to test’, ‘approve’ ‘allow’, ‘discern’, ‘prove’ and ‘try’.

The men of the Church have the authority to bind and loose on earth and forgive and retain sins. We, the laity, cannot do that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Verse 28 as you quote it appears to be only in the Douay-Rheims version. All the other versions say to examine ourselves. This is made clearer in verse 30 where we are told to examine ourselves rather than the church examining us.

The Church still holds the authority. LET a man examine himself, and so LET a man. The men of the Church received their authority from Christ, if they found a problem with a man’s examination of himself, they had the authority to bind him from communion or to loose him to communion.

 

[CMatt25]

The men of the Church have the authority to bind and loose on earth and forgive and retain sins. We, the laity, cannot do that.

Yes I amended my post I guess before you saw it and before I saw your response. I know the laity can’t. I don’t even know how a human priest at the altar can determine or read the worthiness or the state of someone’s heart and mind, who is siting 3 pews from the back, as that moment when they approach the altar for communion.

 

[TheosisM]

Yes I amended my post I guess before you saw it and before I saw your response. I know the laity can’t. I don’t even know how a human priest at the altar can determine or read the worthiness or the state of someone’s heart and mind, who is siting 3 pews from the back, as that moment when they approach the altar for communion.

That’s because priests don’t do this. Unless they know that the person is excommunicated, they have no way of knowing whether someone is in a state of mortal sin (who knows if the person confessed at another parish earlier in the day?). In the East, this is a little modified, and a priest may not give Eucharist to someone they don’t know or didn’t confess to them earlier in the day or the evening before at Vigil/Vespers (noting that in the East confession is done face to face), however priests in general will not attempt to judge the worthiness of a person when they approach for communion, because they can’t.

 

[CMatt25]

That’s because priests don’t do this. Unless they know that the person is excommunicated, they have no way of knowing whether someone is in a state of mortal sin (who knows if the person confessed at another parish earlier in the day?). In the East, this is a little modified, and a priest may not give Eucharist to someone they don’t know or didn’t confess to them earlier in the day or the evening before at Vigil/Vespers (noting that in the East confession is done face to face), however priests in general will not attempt to judge the worthiness of a person when they approach for communion, because they can’t.

I know despite all the words discouraging people from coming forward, the saving grace is they can if they are called. I only pray people know this and are not discouraged by the rhetoric.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdom, I thought I was on pace to understand what you were saying. But now I’m uncertain what you mean by “it is not that they did not realize, it was never revealed to them such”? If it is not they did not realize, then Andrew did realize Christ was Son when he told Peter Christ was Messiah? If so, who revealed it to them so they could realize?

what does it matter? what matters is what Jesus said.

they were expecting the Messisah. there is no mention they were expecting the Son of God. until St Peter had the revelation. until then no one had such. what are you trying to prove anyway?