Sola Scriptura is UNBIBLICAL

[Della]

I was thinking this exact same thing, but then their response always seems to be, "no, we are not protestants, we are Christians believing what we believe (individual interpretation) the Bible means. Taking their 21st century interpretation, or rather some Protestant Pastor’s 18th to 21st century’s interpretation as what was the “true” 1st century interpretation, without then comparing that interpretation to the actual first few centuries of Christian belief and practices. So full of contradiction it is hard for me to believe they are truly being intellectually honest with themselves and others, but rather they are justifying their taught beliefs.

Exactly. And the 18th to 21st century interpretation is usually based purely on human reason alone. They will accept the Incarnation but not transubstantiation. They’ll accept the Resurrection and Ascension but not the Assumption. They’ll accept that Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration but deny the Communion of Saints. They simply pick and choose what they want to believe. That’s not genuine faith, that’s deciding what God can and cannot do. That’s denying much of what the early Christians believed merely because it doesn’t suit them. They embrace very poor biblical and historical scholarship of the “Jesus, the Bible and me” variety, instead of Jesus, his Church, and Sacred Tradition, which was taught and believed before the 16th century.

 

[dronald]

What I find hard to understand among those who prescribe to Sola Scriptura; how can one believe in the Bible “literally” (for lack of a better word) but completely sweep under the rock John 6 (specially John 6:22-59).

John writes that Jesus says he is the “bread of life.”

“52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”” -John 6:52-59 (RSV: CE)

I guess I’m just not getting it. If Jesus says this in John, then how come our Sola Scriptura people don’t believe what Jesus says?

And I’m still trying to figure out how to re-enter my mothers womb!

In all seriousness though, the simple rebuttal is that Jesus rarely explained His symbolism in John, and yet in this instance He does:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

I have not seen anyone respond to the irony of your post. Protestantism is definitely not first century Christianity–there were no Protestants until the 16th century. How in the world can anyone state that they will only accept first century writings and then turn around and say they accept 16th century theological concepts not held in the first century? I’m not trying to be snarky, but only point out that this is self-refuting.

I was thinking this exact same thing, but then their response always seems to be, "no, we are not protestants, we are Christians believing what we believe (individual interpretation) the Bible means. Taking their 21st century interpretation, or rather some Protestant Pastor’s 18th to 21st century’s interpretation as what was the “true” 1st century interpretation, without then comparing that interpretation to the actual first few centuries of Christian belief and practices. So full of contradiction it is hard for me to believe they are truly being intellectually honest with themselves and others, but rather they are justifying their taught beliefs.

Exactly. And the 18th to 21st century interpretation is usually based purely on human reason alone. They will accept the Incarnation but not transubstantiation. They’ll accept the Resurrection and Ascension but not the Assumption. They’ll accept that Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration but deny the Communion of Saints. They simply pick and choose what they want to believe. That’s not genuine faith, that’s deciding what God can and cannot do. That’s denying much of what the early Christians believed merely because it doesn’t suit them. They embrace very poor biblical and historical scholarship of the “Jesus, the Bible and me” variety, instead of Jesus, his Church, and Sacred Tradition, which was taught and believed before the 16th century.

Haha, well I’m glad you all agree with each other!

We don’t pick what we want to believe, we simply believe in the Bible only. And the Bible is the only text that came out of the first Century that was conducted directly by the Apostles or those extremely close to them.

As far as, “was Mary sinless and ascended to Heaven” or “Is Purgatory real” such is irrelevant to us. The Bible doesn’t say it, but if it’s true, then it’s true, big deal.

The reason that Protestant’s want to argue with these points Catholic’s make is they feel if they can prove one thing wrong about Catholicism, the entire Religion falls on it’s self. This is an awful way of thinking. I love Catholic’s way too much, and I know that God is with you.

 

[Jon_S_1]

And I’m still trying to figure out how to re-enter my mothers womb!

In all seriousness though, the simple rebuttal is that Jesus rarely explained His symbolism in John, and yet in this instance He does:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

.

Consider this based on your argument here.

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 Tract Excerpt

 

[Della]

And I’m still trying to figure out how to re-enter my mothers womb!

In all seriousness though, the simple rebuttal is that Jesus rarely explained His symbolism in John, and yet in this instance He does:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

If you are thinking that Jesus meant that his “flesh counts for nothing” then we who have put our faith in him are to be pitied as idiots. Why? Because this would mean that his death meant nothing, either, since it was “in the flesh.” No one interpreted this passage in the manner you have until well after the reformation. See here: haydock1859.tripod.com/id99.html. Scroll down to verse 64.

Haha, well I’m glad you all agree with each other!

Well, that’s only because what we are saying is true.

We don’t pick what we want to believe, we simply believe in the Bible only. And the Bible is the only text that came out of the first Century that was conducted directly by the Apostles or those extremely close to them.

You do know who determined that the NT books actually were apostolic in origin? That’s right, the Church.

As far as, “was Mary sinless and ascended to Heaven” or “Is Purgatory real” such is irrelevant to us. The Bible doesn’t say it, but if it’s true, then it’s true, big deal.

But the Bible does say it. It doesn’t say it explicitly, but it definitely supports these teachings. Not everything Jesus said and did is in the Bible, but that’s not why we believe these teachings and others. It’s because the Church from the very beginning believed them, if not formally defined. The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition which draws on the oral teachings of the Apostles (passed down through the bishops), the general beliefs of Christians in the first century expressed in the Early Church Fathers, and the promise of Christ to his Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her into all truth, in the persons of the Magisterium. We have a treasure trove of sources to draw on. The Bible was never intended to be a proof text for doctrines, but rather was compiled so all the dioceses would read the same readings in the Church’s liturgies. It also teaches us, of course, but it wasn’t compiled so individuals could decide matters of faith and morals.

Just a side note, all the teachings about Mary are meant to support and enlighten us about Christ, not just to glorify her, although she is the greatest of the saints.

The reason that Protestant’s want to argue with these points Catholic’s make is they feel if they can prove one thing wrong about Catholicism, the entire Religion falls on it’s self. This is an awful way of thinking. I love Catholic’s way too much, and I know that God is with you.

The truly ironic thing being that most Protestants don’t even know why they believe things that are not explicitly stated in the Bible, but were decided by the Church, such as the two natures of Christ or the equality of persons in the Holy Trinity. Most accept these as a given, and yet, using just the Bible, people have made pretty good cases against both these teachings, and others. The Arians and Nestorians nearly took over Christianity until the Church held councils to decide the definitive theology on these and other issues. I’m glad you love us, we love you too, which is why we want all our Protestant brethren to embrace the fullness of faith that subsists with the Church Christ founded.

 

[Augustine3]

I think Protestants are just a little wary to accept anything that wasn’t written in the first century. We can trust that Mark was a companion of Peter, and that Luke was a companion of Paul, but the further away we get from the time of Jesus the less trustworthy the claims on behalf of Jesus are.

To a Protestant we have no reason to reject the Bible, and essentially we are apart of the Church Christ established.

I’m not interested in debating, Btw. This is just where we stand. God bless.

Hi Donald,

If Protestants are just a little wary to accept anything that wasn’t written in the first century then I guess Protestants should be wary about who wrote the four gospels because to my knowledge we do have evidence from the 1st century. Catholics and Protestants alike depend on the tradition of the church in order to ascertain who wrote the four gospels. It’s shame Protestants accept only part of the gift Christ has given through his church and not the entire gift.

I love your debates against Muslims BTW, you’re doing a marvellous job!

 

[dronald]

Consider this based on your argument here.

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.

I must appeal to John 3:

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things

Let me ask you, why didn’t Jesus clear up what He was saying? Well, in a way He did; He separated Fleshly things from Spiritual things.

Now let me use the way you phrased your question against you… Are we to understand that Christ had commanded Nicodemus to be born again but then say that there is no profit in being born again? Be born again, but being born again is a waste of time – Is that what He was saying? Hardly. Jesus separated Spiritual understanding of His words from physical understanding, both in John 3 and John 6.

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).

Notice how He that His words are of Spirit and not of flesh, for the flesh profits nothing? Jesus never said that His flesh profits nothing, but the words were of Spirit and there can be no profit in taking what He said literally. It’s the symbolism that’s extremely important in both John 3 and John 6.

Jesus is the bread of life, those who come to Him will never go hungry, and those who believe in Him will never thirst. (John 6:35) Let me ask you, have you ever been hungry or thirsty, and have you come to Jesus and believed in Him? How is this possible then?

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.

I don’t fully see the connection, but I’ll emphasize that Jesus is speaking of His words spoken being of Spirit and not of flesh. A spiritual understanding of what He said must be taken in John 3 and John 6, not a literal one.

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).

That’s exactly the way Jesus defines His words as symbolic in John 3. So I disagree.

Hi Donald,

If Protestants are just a little wary to accept anything that wasn’t written in the first century then I guess Protestants should be wary about who wrote the four gospels because to my knowledge we do have evidence from the 1st century. Catholics and Protestants alike depend on the tradition of the church in order to ascertain who wrote the four gospels. It’s shame Protestants accept only part of the gift Christ has given through his church and not the entire gift.

No doubt. I love the history behind the CC and how they defended Christianity for so long. My conscience just does not accept some of their beliefs, therefore I am not Catholic, do not think that means I never will be though.

I love your debates against Muslims BTW, you’re doing a marvellous job!

Thanks!

I don’t really like debating against Catholics because it’s in my best interest to bring us closer together. But how will I learn otherwise?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I must appeal to John 3:

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things

Let me ask you, why didn’t Jesus clear up what He was saying? Well, in a way He did; He separated Fleshly things from Spiritual things.

Now let me use the way you phrased your question against you… Are we to understand that Christ had commanded Nicodemus to be born again but then say that there is no profit in being born again? Be born again, but being born again is a waste of time – Is that what He was saying? Hardly. Jesus separated Spiritual understanding of His words from physical understanding, both in John 3 and John 6.

Notice how He that His words are of Spirit and not of flesh, for the flesh profits nothing? Jesus never said that His flesh profits nothing, but the words were of Spirit and there can be no profit in taking what He said literally. It’s the symbolism that’s extremely important in both John 3 and John 6.

Jesus is the bread of life, those who come to Him will never go hungry, and those who believe in Him will never thirst. (John 6:35) Let me ask you, have you ever been hungry or thirsty, and have you come to Jesus and believed in Him? How is this possible then?

I don’t fully see the connection, but I’ll emphasize that Jesus is speaking of His words spoken being of Spirit and not of flesh. A spiritual understanding of what He said must be taken in John 3 and John 6, not a literal one.

That’s exactly the way Jesus defines His words as symbolic in John 3. So I disagree.

No doubt. I love the history behind the CC and how they defended Christianity for so long. My conscience just does not accept some of their beliefs, therefore I am not Catholic, do not think that means I never will be though.

Thanks!

I don’t really like debating against Catholics because it’s in my best interest to bring us closer together. But how will I learn otherwise?

If when Nicodemus asked Jesus " How can I reenter my mothers womb?" “Jesus had said to him. VERILY VERILY I say to you you must be born again. This birth is real birth, and whoever is born again I will raise up on the last day”. Then if Nicodemus had responded by walking away over this hard teaching then I would say there is a comparison. However, Jesus clearly explained to Nicodemus.

In John 6, Jesus clearly explains as well, however it is a hard teaching of which people walked away and continue to walk away from today.

 

[Augustine3]

I don’t really like debating against Catholics because it’s in my best interest to bring us closer together. But how will I learn otherwise?

Neither do I like debating Protestants for the same reason you stated.

Ask questions regarding the topics/doctrines you have trouble accepting and God willing they will be answered. This is much more productive than debating. If you ask questions your disposition would be with an open mind whereas debates will close your mind.

God bless you brother.

 

[dronald]

If when Nicodemus asked Jesus " How can I reenter my mothers womb?" “Jesus had said to him. VERILY VERILY I say to you you must be born again. This birth is real birth, and whoever is born again I will raise up on the last day”. Then if Nicodemus had responded by walking away over this hard teaching then I would say there is a comparison. However, Jesus clearly explained to Nicodemus.

In John 6, Jesus clearly explains as well, however it is a hard teaching of which people walked away and continue to walk away from today.

Where does Jesus explain to Nicodemus? It seems as if Jesus said, “Be born again” separated flesh from Spirit and moved on. He did the same thing in John 6.

Also, I know I sound arrogant when I ask this but I must because I just don’t get it. Why is it that Catholic’s become hungry and thirsty if we were meant to take His words in John 6 literally? There’s just so much symbolism in John that when I read the book all the way through, it’s hard to grasp that Jesus was being literal this one time.

Neither do I like debating Protestants for the same reason you stated.

Ask questions regarding the topics/doctrines you have trouble accepting and God willing they will be answered. This is much more productive than debating. If you ask questions your disposition would be with an open mind whereas debates will close your mind.

God bless you brother.

Most of my debates are full of questions, haha. I do find that CAF has a habit of Catholic’s having conversations about some of the silly beliefs of Protestant’s, so I am often very firm in my statements about Protestant beliefs but it doesn’t mean I’m not discussing with an open heart.

Although, you and I can both agree that there is one truth and God wants us all to have that one truth and if we pray earnestly He will lead us there, no doubt.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Where does Jesus explain to Nicodemus? It seems as if Jesus said, “Be born again” separated flesh from Spirit and moved on. He did the same thing in John 6.

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit** gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

Note that upon Nicodemus asking about the physical, Jesus responds, explains how this is spiritual and describes baptism. Nicodemus then does not ask a question about the physical, but simply asks “how can this be” “how does it work”. To which Jesus says “how can you be a spuritual teacher and not know this” he then goes into a long dissertation on the spiritual and belief. Then they go out and baptize. This verse is understood by all Christians through the ages. There is no real controversy here which further proves it was clear then too.

In John 6, when questioned he remains physical (vs 41 and again in vs 53). They continue to grumble and in vs 62-63 he tells them this is something they take on faith. They must deny the fleshly rationalism and trade it for the miraculous of God. The disciples then desert him. They say no one can accept it. These were people that had followed him a lot, sought him out, and saw him perform the miracle of feeding all 5000 of them with the few loaves and fishes. Yet, the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood of a human was repugnant to them. They kept thinking in the flesh and not by the power of the spirit. Jesus even turned to the twelve and asked if they would leave. They did not say, “of course not we get the metaphor " instead putting their hands up and saying " to where should we go”. They trusted Jesus could do this even if they did not understand…which they didn’t.

Of course the early church practiced this exclusively…except for the heretical Gnostics and other heretical groups.
not discussing with an open heart.**

 

[dronald]

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit** gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

Note that upon Nicodemus asking about the physical, Jesus responds, explains how this is spiritual and describes baptism. Nicodemus then does not ask a question about the physical, but simply asks “how can this be” “how does it work”. To which Jesus says “how can you be a spuritual teacher and not know this” he then goes into a long dissertation on the spiritual and belief. Then they go out and baptize. This verse is understood by all Christians through the ages. There is no real controversy here which further proves it was clear then too. **

This I agree with, Jesus was clearly speaking of Spiritual things when speaking of being born again. Nicodemus didn’t get it at first* 4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”* And then he didn’t get it again, *9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
*
Jon S;10967673:

In John 6, when questioned he remains physical (vs 41 and again in vs 53). They continue to grumble and in vs 62-63 he tells them this is something they take on faith. They must deny the fleshly rationalism and trade it for the miraculous of God. The disciples then desert him. They say no one can accept it. These were people that had followed him a lot, sought him out, and saw him perform the miracle of feeding all 5000 of them with the few loaves and fishes. Yet, the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood of a human was repugnant to them. They kept thinking in the flesh and not by the power of the spirit. Jesus even turned to the twelve and asked if they would leave. They did not say, “of course not we get the metaphor " instead putting their hands up and saying " to where should we go”. They trusted Jesus could do this even if they did not understand…which they didn’t.

Of course the early church practiced this exclusively…except for the heretical Gnostics and other heretical groups.
not discussing with an open heart.

Again, Nicodemus was in the same boat

3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

But grasping the idea of being, “Born again” was impossible. So Jesus explained things the way He always did and that was through Spiritual symbolism. He used physical things to explain Spiritual things.

I know we’re not going to budge, and it’s not my intent to get you to so perhaps you can answer me my question that throws me off when reading John 6. If Jesus was speaking of literal flesh and blood, why did He say what He said in 6:35?

 

[Jon_S_1]

This I agree with, Jesus was clearly speaking of Spiritual things when speaking of being born again. Nicodemus didn’t get it at first* 4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”* And then he didn’t get it again, *9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
*

Again, Nicodemus was in the same boat

3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

But grasping the idea of being, “Born again” was impossible. So Jesus explained things the way He always did and that was through Spiritual symbolism. He used physical things to explain Spiritual things.

I know we’re not going to budge, and it’s not my intent to get you to so perhaps you can answer me my question that throws me off when reading John 6. If Jesus was speaking of literal flesh and blood, why did He say what He said in 6:35?

Good question!

In 6:34 the disciples ask for bread to eat…physically. He had just fed them miraculous bread in the feeding of the 5000 and talked about the manna which was real food , so naturally they want to literally eat some of this “new manna”.

Jesus flat at tells them that he is this bread. As Catholics teach today, the Eucharist will nurture your soul, and feed your spirit. And as Jesus goes on to say when questioned on this, My flesh is REAL FOOD, MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK. Jesus is building up to his teaching knowing a big stumbling block is coming. He wants to emphasize that the disciples must truly believe and have faith in Him and they will not hunger or thirst. They will be full if understanding, full of faith, full of spiritual health. The disciples had largely followed because if the multiplication of the loaves, but many may not have had the level of faith required. Jesus prepares them that this is required. He then describes his body and blood ad real food. They then left due to their lack of faith in his miraculous transforming power.

If John 6 was comparable to John 3 it would be him telling Nicodemus, "I speak of Real Rebirth I speak of Real Wombs.

That would change everything about John 3, and shows the complete dissimilarity of John 6. Not everything in John 6 is symbolism. There may be a lot, but not everything. This certainly is not one of those things, as Jesus clarifies and emphasizes the physical.

 

[dronald]

Good question!

In 6:34 the disciples ask for bread to eat…physically. He had just fed them miraculous bread in the feeding of the 5000 and talked about the manna which was real food , so naturally they want to literally eat some of this “new manna”.

Jesus flat at tells them that he is this bread. As Catholics teach today, the Eucharist will nurture your soul, and feed your spirit. And as Jesus goes on to say when questioned on this, My flesh is REAL FOOD, MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK. Jesus is building up to his teaching knowing a big stumbling block is coming. He wants to emphasize that the disciples must truly believe and have faith in Him and they will not hunger or thirst. They will be full if understanding, full of faith, full of spiritual health. The disciples had largely followed because if the multiplication of the loaves, but many may not have had the level of faith required. Jesus prepares them that this is required. He then describes his body and blood ad real food. They then left due to their lack of faith in his miraculous transforming power.

If John 6 was comparable to John 3 it would be him telling Nicodemus, "I speak of Real Rebirth I speak of Real Wombs.

That would change everything about John 3, and shows the complete dissimilarity of John 6. Not everything in John 6 is symbolism. There may be a lot, but not everything. This certainly is not one of those things, as Jesus clarifies and emphasizes the physical.

But don’t you see how He calls Himself bread, and it just seems so symbolic to me. It’s very hard for me to get past this… Look:

33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Now, that’s literal to you, symbolic to me. So then the Jews say:

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

And then the answer:

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life…

Literal to you, symbolic to me.

…Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Symbolic to you, symbolic to me.

And then the rest is literal. (Even though I believe Jesus explains, but we have separate interpretations of what His words mean.)

Notice how the Catholic interpretation takes everything literally but has to logically take the second part of verse 35 symbolically? There’s no other way around verse 35, just like there’s no other way around chapter 3.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But don’t you see how He calls Himself bread, and it just seems so symbolic to me. It’s very hard for me to get past this… Look:

33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Now, that’s literal to you, symbolic to me. So then the Jews say:

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

And then the answer:

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life…

Literal to you, symbolic to me.

…Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Symbolic to you, symbolic to me.

And then the rest is literal. (Even though I believe Jesus explains, but we have separate interpretations of what His words mean.)

Notice how the Catholic interpretation takes everything literally but has to logically take the second part of verse 35 symbolically? There’s no other way around verse 35, just like there’s no other way around chapter 3.

I see what your saying, but you are doing the standard Protestant argument of either/or. Either it’s ALL symbolic or ALL literal. Catholics have no problem using the both/and principle. These verses have elements that are both symbolic and literal. There is no contradiction, they complement.

If this was a pure symbol, then it was cruel for Jesus to let them walk away in misunderstanding, possibly walking to damnation because of unclear teaching and not a matter if faith.

Further John wrote this. John taught Polycarp and Polycarp instructed Ignatius of Antioch who affirms this essential teaching as follows:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

 

[dronald]

I see what your saying, but you are doing the standard Protestant argument of either/or. Either it’s ALL symbolic or ALL literal. Catholics have no problem using the both/and principle. These verses have elements that are both symbolic and literal. There is no contradiction, they complement.

If this was a pure symbol, then it was cruel for Jesus to let them walk away in misunderstanding, possibly walking to damnation because of unclear teaching and not a matter if faith.

Some things Jesus kept hidden and it wasn’t Him being cruel; it was based on their own blindness.

Look here

John 2:18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

The Disciples were made to know the parables and the Spiritual symbolism of what Jesus said. Others who wished for a sign were often left disappointed.

Further John wrote this. John taught Polycarp and Polycarp instructed Ignatius of Antioch who affirms this essential teaching as follows:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

This is Catholicisms strongest argument. I’ll write something up sometime (I can’t always get back to things on this site right away, but I always revisit.) I’ve been enjoying our discussion!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Some things Jesus kept hidden and it wasn’t Him being cruel; it was based on their own blindness.

Look here

John 2:18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

The Disciples were made to know the parables and the Spiritual symbolism of what Jesus said. Others who wished for a sign were often left disappointed.

This is Catholicisms strongest argument. I’ll write something up sometime (I can’t always get back to things on this site right away, but I always revisit.) I’ve been enjoying our discussion!

I have enjoyed as well! Nice having civil theological discussion!

My initial thought on John 2 was they were testing Jesus, asking for proof, in John 6 they simply did not understand, asked clarification and then after receiving clarification, did not say prove it, but instead walked away thinking him crazy most likely.

I agree the Church Fathers make for a strong argument. Looking forward to read your response sometime.

God Bless!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I think there is another aspect to the Bread of Life Discourse that has not been mentioned yet. John 6 really is symbolic. Jesus is not literally bread, and Jesus’s point is that he is the source of eternal salvation. However, there is a shift that I see in John 6:52.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

The question turns to how we will receive Jesus. He continues to insist that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but in stronger words. “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). There is another point often thrown around in Catholic apologetics which is worthy of consideration. There is a new verb for eating being used in this section. I’ll quote the “Word Study” from the Ignatius Study Bible.

Eats (Jn 6:54)
Trogo (Gk.): A verb meaning “chew” or “gnaw.” It is used five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John the veb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus’ teaching, which up until Jn 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthio, Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words: he demands we express our faith by eating, in a real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.

While this passage maybe could be interpreted symbolically in isolation, it is hard for me to do so with the Last Supper in mind where Jesus literally gave bread to his disciples saying, “this is my body,” which John 6 seems undeniably to have in mind. Is Jesus saying, “unless you eat bread and drink wine (or grape juice ) in memory of me, you have no life in you?”

This is one of my big problems with Baptists’ (and most Evangelicals’) notion of sacraments. They reject the idea of sacraments as superstition and claim that they are merely “ordinances” which are empty symbols and do not confer grace. I thought Christ came to save us from the law, not to institute new arbitrary laws? What is the point of the Lord’s Supper if there is no grace given?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think there is another aspect to the Bread of Life Discourse that has not been mentioned yet. John 6 really is symbolic. Jesus is not literally bread, and Jesus’s point is that he is the source of eternal salvation. However, there is a shift that I see in John 6:52.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

The question turns to how we will receive Jesus. He continues to insist that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but in stronger words. “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). There is another point often thrown around in Catholic apologetics which is worthy of consideration. There is a new verb for eating being used in this section. I’ll quote the “Word Study” from the Ignatius Study Bible.

Eats (Jn 6:54)
Trogo (Gk.): A verb meaning “chew” or “gnaw.” It is used five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John the veb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus’ teaching, which up until Jn 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthio, Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words: he demands we express our faith by eating, in a real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.

While this passage maybe could be interpreted symbolically in isolation, it is hard for me to do so with the Last Supper in mind where Jesus literally gave bread to his disciples saying, “this is my body,” which John 6 seems undeniably to have in mind. Is Jesus saying, “unless you eat bread and drink wine (or grape juice ) in memory of me, you have no life in you?”

This is one of my big problems with Baptists’ (and most Evangelicals’) notion of sacraments. They reject the idea of sacraments as superstition and claim that they are merely “ordinances” which are empty symbols and do not confer grace. I thought Christ came to save us from the law, not to institute new arbitrary laws? What is the point of the Lord’s Supper if there is no grace given?

I believe it was Flanneru O’Connor who when asked if she actually believed in the real presence said, “well if all it is is a symbol, I say To hell with it.”

Aren’t symbols and traditions of no spiritual value the antithesis of most Protestants as meaningless traditions? Yet they do this meaningless tradition and the meaningless tradition of Baptism because Jesus said to, missing the whole time that these are worthwhile vehicles of Gods grace.

 

[PoorKnight]

My conscience just does not accept some of their beliefs, therefore I am not Catholic…

Brother drondald, I don’t want to upset you or anything, and I mean this in all charity… I just want to use something you said as an example and springboard to discussion…

The above quote is the heart of Sola Scriptura. Every time I come across the debate of authority it always has come down to the Sola Scriptura believer saying “My interpretation is …” or “I don’t believe…” or something similar.

The whole discussion of John chp 3 vs John chp 6… symbolic only vs symbolic and literal comes down to this: We all know what Jesus SAID. Now what did He mean. There, right there is where authority comes in. How do we know what Jesus MEANT. How does each part in the debate answer that?

Sola Scriptura says Sola Ego: Me alone; (the statement will be “Scripture Alone” but as we see it really comes down to “[my interpretation of] Scripture Alone”, hence the 30,000 plus spits in Christianity since the 16th Century). It is my conscience, my feeling of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, My interpretation is infallible - in action only, verbally and intellectually many will deny any kind of infallibility of interpretation. I had one Protestant radio show host say, in response to my question, that there will never be an infallible interpretation of Scripture until Jesus comes again. So, in his view, we can never know what Scripture actually MEANS… think of the implications of that!

Martin Luther eventually bemoaned private interpretation when he made his comment about there being as many theologies as heads, now.

What does Scripture say about private interpretation? Scripture says Scripture is not open to personal interpretation: Acts 8:31, 2 Pet 1:20, 2 Pet 3:16.

How does the Catholic answer that same question?

Catholics says: Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture. We can show historical writings from about the same time as Scripture, or slightly later, that show how the students of the Apostles interpreted Scripture, how those in authority taught Scripture etc. which are the same ways (only understood more fully) we interpret them today.

Take, for example, our discussion of John 6 and the question of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. My challenge is if someone can find me one quote from the first 500 years of non-heretical Christian writers (heck I’ll even give you 700 years) that says the Eucharist is just a symbol and only a symbol, I’ll seriously consider your version of Christianity.

BUT if I can find 3 to 4 DOZEN quotes, in that same time period, that say that the Eucharist is the Actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, you have to seriously consider the Catholic Church.

We also point to the fact that Christ gave His authority to teach and preach in His Name, not to all the disciples, but to the 12 (Lk 10:16, Mt 28:20 and many others) and they passed this authority on to their successors (Acts 1:21 and others).

We can also show that the students of the Apostles saw the Church (and especially the Bishop of Rome) as the teacher of Scripture, and not the individual.

So it all comes down to: What does GOD mean when Scripture says ________ . Not what do I think God means.

Its up to God, not us. There’s only one way to interpret Scripture: God’s way. If God says such and such line is literal and such and such line is merely symbolic we can say “Serviam” or “Non Serviam”

I’m pretty rushed here so Sorry if I jumped around and didn’t give all the cites…

God Bless

 

[pablope]

But don’t you see how He calls Himself bread, and it just seems so symbolic to me. It’s very hard for me to get past this… Look:

33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Now, that’s literal to you, symbolic to me. So then the Jews say:

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

And then the answer:

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life…

Literal to you, symbolic to me.

…Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Symbolic to you, symbolic to me.

And then the rest is literal. (Even though I believe Jesus explains, but we have separate interpretations of what His words mean.)

Notice how the Catholic interpretation takes everything literally but has to logically take the second part of verse 35 symbolically? There’s no other way around verse 35, just like there’s no other way around chapter 3.

Dronald…Scott Hahn was the guest on CA live yesterday. If you want to listen, which I urge you…here is the link:

catholic.com/radio/shows/consuming-the-word-8596

From what I remember…he discusses his new book…Consuming the Word…and he gives valuable insights, including the selection of how the NT books were selected based on the teachings of the Eucharist…the Real Presence.

As you have been informed, the books were mainly selected for use in the Liturgy, for instruction and reading to the faithful.

Anyway…if the books were selected for such…and the CC has been teaching the real presence for 2000 yrs…how could you then reconcile a priest instructing the faithful on the Real presence and them come to what seem like a contradictory passage?

And one more thing…of all the heresies that sprang up in the Early Church…not one challenged the teaching of the Real Presence. It was only when protestants arrived at the scene that the disbelief in the Eucharist became a norm, so to speak…so can you give an explanation to this as to why suddenly, protestants started to believe otherwise?