P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
BTW- another poster credited me with the Greek translations. I couldn’t remember who did them until zerocrossing said something. You did a wonderful job!Hello,
Aww…shucks.![]()
BTW- another poster credited me with the Greek translations. I couldn’t remember who did them until zerocrossing said something. You did a wonderful job!Hello,
Aww…shucks.![]()
So true.Hello,
If every single verse must contain explicitly the whole of Christian doctrine, otherwise it gets thrown out - you’ll end up with a very empty Bible.
Ya think? How bout we run a betting pool on how many pages more this thread will grow?So, it took 860 posts,
Your question is excellent. Here is the answer.Don’t you find this absolutely shocking that your church claims to be the only one with authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet it has done only 7?
Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.
Beautiful and simply put. Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was in the beginnig…The WORD gives us eternal life…live as “ONE” in the WORD. Are weapon and defense is the WORD do not fight with swords but by the very word of God.Bethlehem is where Jesus was born.
It is Hebrew it means “house of bread”
Where did Mary place the baby Jesus?
In a manger.
What does manger mean?
“To Chew”
What do we put in a manger?
Something to eat.
What did Jesus say in John 6?
51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
He will live forever?
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has** eternal life, **and I will raise him up on the last day.
How do we abide in Jesus?
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
Jesus said eat the flesh of the Son of Man, Not eat the flesh and understand.
You are easily shocked and thin skinned. Not you nor any other protestant will ever change the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first Pope - 263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.Don’t you find this absolutely shocking that your church claims to be the only one with authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet it has done only 7?
Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.
Hi, justasking!Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.
If we examined the blood of Christ under a microscope we should expect to see human blood. Correct?Wrong. If we examined the blood of Jesus under a microscope and could not see God then your theory goes bye-bye…teachccd![]()
He cannot lie or create a god exactly like Himself.What do you mean that God can do ALMOST anything??? What exactly are His limitations?
If i understand you correctly then in John 6 Jesus is advocating canabalism. This is what follows from what you are saying.Wrong. In Semitic cultures, the phrases to “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are metaphorical meanings to inflict great bodily injury on someone. This was true then (Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2) and even today, among the Arabs. While “eat” by itself allows a metaphorical meaning of “believe” (and there is such usage in the Old Testament), to “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are not. Even today, no culture equates believing one’s words with the eating of one’s flesh. On the contrary, the closest English analogue, to “eat alive” means that one is viciously attacked verbally, which is much milder than the ancient Jewish meaning.
This is even made more evident starting at verse 54 (which PatienceAndLove had already indicated, but in your great tradition, you deliberately ignore) when Jesus switches from the Greek verb phago to trogo, which means the gnaw or chew, and when combined with sarx (flesh) makes for a very graphic picture. To trogo one’s flesh is no metaphor for “belief”.
Combine this verb with his insistence that his flesh is “real” (alethes) food and his blood “real” drink, and there is no room of anything metaphorical.
In other words, if you insist on a metaphorical interpretation, Jesus is essentially saying, “Unless you viciously assault me, you have no life in you.”
That simply renders Jesus’ words utter nonsense, and that’s not acceptable. That’s why his disciples left him because they CORRECTLY understood him. And because they CORRECTLY understood him, Jesus never called them back.
In a manner of speaking, yes. Christ is the Paschal Lamb. For the Jews to fully participate in the Passover, they must eat the flesh of the Lamb. That covenant continues in the sacrament of the Eucharist.If i understand you correctly then in John 6 Jesus is advocating canabalism. This is what follows from what you are saying.
JMJ_coder;3106968]Hello,
I find it amazing that catholics believe that something has happened to the bread and wine even though there is no evidence for it. I suspect most would not accept such reasons in other areas of life. However the catholic church as an institution is a powerful influence in many catholics life and to question it (even if you disagree) is to question God Himself.Have you seen enough replies - care to respond now.
Like I said, I don’t know. There is a lot that the Apostles did not know until after the Resurrection and Pentecost.
We can see them, at a minimum, starting to understand this in the account of the Meeting on the Road to Emmaus.
This is where the church has accepted unbiblical concepts into its theology by grounding its beliefs on Aristotelian philosophy.THE BREAD AND WINE CEASE TO EXIST!!! Jesus does NOT have a bread nature or a wine nature!!! The bread and wine cease to exist and only the accidents remain. Read Saint Thomas Aquinas if you are interested in the Church’s understanding of this (i.e., the use of Aristotelian philosophy and terminology).
And why was this cahrge against the church false? Was it based on a literal understanding or a figuative?In a manner of speaking, yes. Christ is the Paschal Lamb. For the Jews to fully participate in the Passover, they must eat the flesh of the Lamb. That covenant continues in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Also, one of the charges against the early Christians was that they were cannibals, precisely because they believed so strongly in the real, physical presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharistic Feast.
But there IS evidence–Christ himself in the Bread of Life discourse and the Last Supper accounts indicates that this is what happens. You choose to interpret this biblical evidence differently. Fine. But I’ll put my stock in the unbroken teaching tradition of the Catholic Church and the words of Christ himself.I find it amazing that catholics believe that something has happened to the bread and wine even though there is no evidence for it…