# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[pneuma07]

Sounds reasonable to me. But there is still the great oak blocking the road to the river: Protestants suggest that the Successors of Peter lost their way, and lost the truth. Having become so deceived, the Holy Spirit had no choice but to preserve the remnant of the Church by way of the Protestant Reformers. I understand you disagree (and perhaps you’ve already told me why, but i’ve forgotten), but please tell me why you disagree with them.

1. You have rejected Leonidas ‘ proposal about possible derailments of the Church, guided by the episcopal leadership selected by the apostles, around 100AD.
   Then this poses serious problems for a Leonidas of later times too, should he reject what was taught by that leadership.
   If you consider the Church structure, reading Ignatius you see the ministerial priesthood, and the clear three-tiered hierarchy in it, with bishop, presbytery and deacons in every major local Church.
   Read Ignatius’ letters, and consider whether the Church he prescribes, and the Church he describes, is even in approximation what is prescribed and described in 21st century Evangelicalism.

What about these points, eg.

which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. Philadelphians , introduction

*See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. *(Smyrneans, ch.8)

This can be IMHO seen as of paramount importance for Apostolic Succession as well as for the Eucharistic Doctrine. Bishops are the strict heirs and perpetuators of the task *Do this in memory of me. *

*For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. *(Philadelphians ch. 3

1. At this point, once we have accepted  that there really were  specific successors of the Apostles, ie the bishops, an evangelical  reading of the Great Commission becomes really problematic IMHO.

and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

“ Your successors, the bishops, will eventually fall into heresy. All of them. “( some would add at this point, “ but outside your successors there will always remain a scattered forgotten few faithful to my word“). And the time comes, when the Spirit shall call many, who, saving a large part of my sheep from your successors, shall restore the original Church, and all the teachings handed down by you to your immediate successors“.

If apostolic succession is a reality, if this is the continuation of the original model, and ultimately the prolongation of Incarnation, shall we believe this fits with an *en masse *derailment of the successors of the Apostles ?

Is there a more direct and stricter possible sense of the “ You“ addressed by the Lord to the Apostles, to last unto the end of the world, than their legitimate successors ?

1. I guess we should carefully scrutinize the view of the faithful remnants, in its different variants. Do you suppose it could pass a serious examination ….a la Socrates4Jesus ? Should it fail, the different protestant buildings could face IMHO a collapse.
2. I subscribe this sentence I had previously quoted.

A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.

And I cannot see any better candidate to this task than the Catholic Church.

Because I am wholeheartedly with our protestant brothers when they tell me we must not acknowledge any religious authority but God, and I know no other than the Apostles and their Chief, and their successors and co-workers, who received legitimate delegation of authority by the Incarnated Logos.

Any visible effects on our oak ?

In Christ
P7

 

[joe370]

I think you are misunderstanding him. What he (his user name on the other forum is Joker) was suggesting is that

**No, I knew that was what he meant! **

spiritual = symbolic

**Spiritual is not synonymous with symbolic.
**

So when Jesus said this,

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

(John 6:63)

[/INDENT]our God and Savior was saying that He was speaking symbolically, as He did in chapter’s 3 and 4 of John’s Gospel.

**Did any of Jesus’ followers walk away after he finished teaching in John 3 and 4, as they did in John 6? Clearly they were taking his words literally!!!

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **

Jesus said:

*“Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
*

If we are to symbolically eat this bread then the Israelites too, must have symbolically eaten the manna; did they? I mean, in both cases eating was/is to be accomplished - correct? What is this living bread that we are to eat, to which Jesus is referring? This bread is His flesh - correct? What happens if we eat the bread that comes down from heaven? We will live forever -correct?

Why did they walk away? If they walked away because they thought he was speaking idiomatically (unless you hate, revile and kill me you will not have eternal life) - then I guess the early church leaders, guided by the holy spirit ( some, who even knew the Apostles) - apparently didn’t get the memo. LOL…

As far as the verse: *“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life,” *perhaps you could clarify on what joker meant! A symbolical interpretation made no sense to me, even as a former Lutheran. Jesus’ words are spiritual, not symbolic!!! Matthew said:

"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Again, I would ask him: what is in the cup my friend?

Soc, what is in the cup my friend, as per Jesus Christ??? I’ll give you a buffalo nickel if you answer the question! LOL…**

So i’m wondering how you would respond to Joker.

**I would say to Joker exactly what Jesus said to the grumblers and is saying to Joker:

*“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” *

Jesus’ true nature is spirit; He only took on flesh, temporarily, for our sake. That is why he said: it is the spirit that gives life and the flesh profits nothing. Our true home is of a spiritual nature. We are to eat and drink His glorified flesh and blood, as opposed to his temporal and carnal body which walked the earth almost 2000 years ago. The grumblers didn’t understand the difference, at least, not until Jesus was glorified!

All was revealed on Pentecost!!!

When Jesus said: the flesh profits nothing, surely he wasn’t referring to his own flesh that hung on the cross and purchased our redemption? Surely it’s our flesh that profits nothing?

Soc, after the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat,” Jesus said to them,* "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. …*

Why didn’t Jesus put their minds at ease by saying something like: Calm down; I’m simply speaking in metaphor like I have done in the past? Surely Jesus, who you believe without doubt, is your savior, would not be deliberately ambiguous? Or, are you sticking with the idiom? That certainly would make sense as to why they walked away, but like I also said: that would mean that Jesus waited 2000 years to reveal this fact, to you alone. Again, wouldn’t that make all eastern orthodox and catholics guilty of Eucharistic idolatry???

Why would I believe that Jesus’ flesh to which we are to eat, prophets nothing considering the fact that Jesus said prior to this: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Seems completely contradictory from a protestant perspective!

Just before Jesus said: the spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing, he said: What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! If they saw this (and they did) - then a cannibalistic interpretation would be removed.

**

 

[joe370]

Paul said:

“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”

Perhaps you could ask your friend: is the cup of thanksgiving (Eucharist) - a participation in the blood of Christ? Shouldn’t the bread that his church leaders break be a participation in the body of Christ? Furthermore, how does the one loaf of which his church members partake, make those who are many - one body, if it’s just mere bread, as opposed to Christ’s glorified flesh? This only makes sense if the bread is Jesus’ flesh which, once eaten, binds all Christians together as one large family, to which, we will feel it’s effects in toto, once we put on our imperishable and glorified bodies!

Also, if it’s just mere bread like the manna, then why is it called living bread? What’s the difference between bread and living bread?

The Eucharist which is the living bread, is real food for the soul…

 

[joe370]

One premise you appear to propose, Joe, is that when Jesus said this, 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. Matthew 16:18

What He really meant was something like this, And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the Church will not fail to continue to teach the truth, Am i correct in interpreting what you are saying?

---

Well, Jesus said:

*"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
*

And Paul said:

*“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” *

Clearly the gates of Hades have overcome many wolves in sheep’s clothing, belonging to the C.C., through the centuries; all churches for that matter. Even one of Jesus’ own hand picked Apostles was overcome by the evil one. Destroying Jesus’ Mystical body, the church, which is made up of all sinners, is the devils only mission; that is why Peter called the devil the anti-Christ; he hates Christ’s body and he wants to destroy Christians (Jesus’ body) - who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ:

“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Continued…

The bible clearly tells us that this is possible, but the wheat that comprise Jesus’ established church which is being guided by the holy spirit, will bear the onslaught of the evil one, from within and without, until the end of time, so that the good news can be propagated to the very ends of the earth, as per the bible.

So, we can safely say that the following words are not a blanketed statement applying to all members of Jesus’ one church, including the clergy. People have free will and if people want to infect the body of Christ, they can, at least until they are caught; if not in this world, then definitely in the next.

The holy spirit, Who is the spirit of truth came to safeguard all that Jesus taught so that people from every century could benefit from His teachings; he didn’t come to make sure every Christian does the right thing; if that were the case, there would still be just one church in the world today.

*John 14 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth.
It is very clear that the holy spirit will be with Jesus’ established church forever - is that correct?

*John 16 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. *

If the holy spirit is still with the church built by Jesus, then isn’t it safe to say that the spirit of truth is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth; protecting and preserving that truth? Isn’t it safe to say that you and I should belong to this church based on this fact? Clearly the mission of the holy spirit is to take from what is Gods and make it known to Jesus’ established church.

John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me.

Again the mission of the holy spirit is to testify about Jesus Christ as opposed to the prevention of individual heresy.

*John 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
Soc, do you believe that the helper is still helping the church built by Jesus Christ?

From this we can conclude that the holy spirit’s mission is to protect and preserve all that Jesus taught, and to guide Jesus’ established church through every century until the end of time, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat.

Jesus said: I will build my church; it’s his church, and I think that what you said is the correct interpretation of Matthew 16. However, what matters is what Jesus’ church leaders think, for we are to obey our leaders and submit to their authority:

*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrew 13
*

Do you think that the church built by God, comprised of both weeds and wheat, CAN fail to teach the truth regarding all that Jesus taught? If so, then what does that say about the rest of the man-made churches?

If Jesus is the savior of His body, the church, then how can she fail? If she fails then Jesus fails!

Jesus said:

“Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

What do you think the following words mean?

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.

 

[joe370]

Soc, you said:

**My virtual Protestant friend of mine–who said he has several good friends who are Catholic and had a great deal of respect for them–told me that the real food of which Christ spoke was spiritual (not physical) food. **

Soc, could you please identify this “spiritual food” (as opposed to physical food, such as bread) - that we are commanded to eat?

The spiritual is a realer reality than the merely physical, he said. How would you answer him, Joe?

So your friend is saying: even though it is mere bread, spiritually speaking, this bread becomes a “realer” reality? How very catholic of him!

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by paul c…

Why would the holy spirit and Jesus, who said he would be with the church until the end of the Age, allow the church to lose the truth?

Soc, you said: Good question, PC! Why indeed? Do you think that Jesus’ words preclude this from occurring?

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. (Matthew 16:18)

One thing I have noticed about some of your posts is: you answer questions with questions! Perhaps you could answer the question and then ask your question.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, because I believe Jesus gave us everything we need for salvation and I don’t think he’d be ambiguous. My conclusion to your question would be that what we are observing is simplicity that is the simplicity of God and clarity that is sometimes beyond our grasp because of our will. God’s Word transforms our will and sometimes those passages become perfectly clear. Much like the birth of Christ. He preached just by being born. By become human, he obviously loves us. But the complexity of human wisdom is only the lack of the beatific vision which is vision of God and answers it all. I have no quotes though! I’m not that well versed I think or have a bad memory.

I’ve met more than one Protestant who says the same thing you do, Ham3, but they’re serving a different pork roast. They tell me Jesus gives us everything we need for salvation. They tell me He is not being ambiguous at the Last Supper and when He tells Peter He will build His church on the Rock. They tell me God’s written Word transforms the will and makes these passages perfectly clear.

Yet they also tell me it’s perfectly clear that Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said, “Take, eat. This is my body that will be sacrificed for you.” They tell me there is no ambiguity in Jesus’ words to Peter when He said, “On this Rock I will build my Church,” and the only correct interpretation is that the rock of which Jesus spoke is not Peter, but the truth that Peter spoke. That is, the Rock on which the Church is built is the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

So it appears that you both must be mistaken, for if you were both correct, then wouldn’t you both have the same beliefs? In fact, a Protestant might say that your admitting that you know little Scripture is evidence that you are not putting your own advice into practice. If you’d practice what you preach, she’d say, you just might see the same truth she sees.

---

BTW, you don’t have to know Sacred Scripture to quote it. Just use a good Bible search engine, like this one:

biblegateway.com/keyword/

Just type in the words for which you want it to search, and choose where you want it to search, and it will list all of the results. Another great way to learn the Bible is to pick a book of the Bible you’ve always wanted to read and read it. I’ve read the entire Bible through a few times, but i get the most out of rereading just two books–Psalms in the Old Testament and the gospel of John in the New Testament.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The difference is that Evangelicals et al disagree with other, purportedly hell-bound, Protestants over the meaning of scripture whereas the CCs authority doesn’t derive from there to begin with.

From where does the CC authority derive? and, more importantly, how do you know?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So every time we read the words spirit, we should read it to mean “Symbolic”?

Should we start baptising in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Symbol?

Why does Spirit mean symbolic suddenly in this particular case? Is there any other NT examples where the words spirit mean symbolic?

God bless,
Ut

LOL! No, of course not, UT! The meaning of a word is determined by the immediate context. The Protestant claim–and perhaps you might demonstrate that it is an invalid one–is that Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were figures of speech. (That’s one reason why i now see some of His words ambiguous, because i sometimes find it hard to determine when He is speaking literally, and when He is speaking figuratively.) John’s gospel has many examples of Jesus using figures of speech. Here is just one: 1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The **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? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the **snake **in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: **Light **has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

(John 3)

Here we see that

• born again is a figure of speech representing a change of attitude and belief, and perhaps even a change of the very nature of one’s soul, and
• **wind **is a figure of speech representing the Holy Spirit, and
• **snake **is a figure of speech representing Jesus Christ, and
• **light **is a figure of speech representing truth.

I suppose the question to answer is how do we know Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 3 but literally in John 6? Is there anything we can glean by way of comparison?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Of course they do. Jesus will not allow his church to fail. He set it up to teach the truth and administer the sacraments and he watches over it to ensure that it does.

Perhaps you are correct, PC. I suppose that would depend on the meaning of Christ’s words. Let’s consider what He meant by saying this:… and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)
The three phrases or words we need to define are

• gates of Hades

and

• overcome

and

• it (the Church)

Let’s start by considering the phrase, “the gates of Hades.” John was writing to a Greek and Roman audience. The term Gates of Hades, i’ve learned from reading Plato and studying mythology, is a metaphor for death. According to Greek mythology, Hades was the God of the underworld, a place which was also named Hades. The Gates of Hades were the gates which, once a soul passed through them, could not return without the permission of Hades. One could pass through the gates while still alive, but could rarely ever return. Very few heroes in Greek mythology who passed through the gates ever made it back alive. Hercules was one of the few heroes who was said to have returned through the Gates of Hades and cheated death.

The upshot is this: When a Greek or Roman used the words Gates of Hades he was speaking of death. Saying, “He passed through the Gates of Hades,” would be like you or i saying, “He kicked the bucket.” Therefore, when John wrote these words to his Greek audience:… and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

the words would have an immediate meaning. They would understand that Jesus was saying:… and [death] will not overcome [the Church].

(Matthew 16:18)So i suppose we should ask ourselves this question: How does death not overcome Jesus’ Church? What’s your answer, PC?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that the way Paul and John use the word “spirit” is not complicated. I’m sure it is. But I just don’t see it as meaning symbolic anywhere. Sometimes it is the spirit of truth, sometimes it is the spirit of wisdom. Often the spirit is spoken about as dwelling in the body. Separation of spirit and body means death. …

That appears to be an extremely good point! Let me do some searching and see if i can find an example of the word spirit or spiritual meaning symbolic.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Let me toss out a few lifesaver’s of truth.

1.) There is a moral monotheistic God.
2.) Human beings exist and have an eternal soul.
3.) God wants each human being to be with Him forever in Heaven.
4.) God has given human beings free will.
5.) God cares what human beings believe (and/or do) and will not accept those who reject Him into Heaven.
6.) There cannot be multiple conflicting ways to align our will with Gods will (i.e. Not reject God.)
7.) Given 1-6, God “must” provide humans with a sure way to know what He wants them to believe (and/or do.)
8.) He cared so much about 3 and therefore 7 that He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, to Earth to show us once and for all the Way to obtain eternal Life with Him in Heaven.
9.) Jesus taught His disciples, the Apostles, this Way.
10.) Jesus sent His Apostles to teach this Way to the “ends of the Earth.”

Let me know if any of these sink when you grab hold of them. i.e. Your Faith and Reason tell you that they are false.

Chuck

I agree with every premise, Chuck! No FE (factual errors) there!



Now please tell me your conclusion and we will see if the premises support it and there are not LE (logical errors).

 

[paul_c]

LOL! No, of course not, UT! The meaning of a word is determined by the immediate context. The Protestant claim–and perhaps you might demonstrate that it is an invalid one–is that Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were figures of speech. (That’s one reason why i now see some of His words ambiguous, because i sometimes find it hard to determine when He is speaking literally, and when He is speaking figuratively.) John’s gospel has many examples of Jesus using figures of speech. Here is just one: 1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The **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? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the **snake **in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: **Light **has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

(John 3)

Here we see that

• born again is a figure of speech representing a change of attitude and belief, and perhaps even a change of the very nature of one’s soul, and
• **wind **is a figure of speech representing the Holy Spirit, and
• **snake **is a figure of speech representing Jesus Christ, and
• **light **is a figure of speech representing truth.

I suppose the question to answer is how do we know Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 3 but literally in John 6? Is there anything we can glean by way of comparison?

SOC,
These aren’t the same as saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his cup.

Wind: he’s actually talking about the wind here. The wind blows and you don’t know where it is going. he’s using that as an example

Snake: This refers to the Exodus story where the Israelites were being bitten by serpents in the desert. God had Moses make a bronze snake .that would heal those bit by the snakes if they only looked at it.

And yes, he uses born again to talk about a change in attitude and light to describe truth as opposed to darkness, but these are figures of speach. Eating his flesh is not a figure of speach.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Fari enough. Do you feel like you are under pressure by your Protestant friends and family because you are considering converting to Catholicism?

Sure.

This was very obvious from how you constructed your courtroom drama, so why did you give me a hard time about making the point?

In any case, I recognize that this is a hard bridge for you to cross. I was just trying to point out to you that many others on these pages are themselves converts and can give you advice on how to overcome the pressure you are feeling. Take the plunge and start RCIA classes. They will give you a chance to personally ask questions and witness Catholicism on a more first hand basis and you can always back out…

 

[fhansen]

From where does the CC authority derive? and, more importantly, how do you know?

That’s a good question. And one not so easy to answer- or explain. I listened and studied and prayed intently. I listened to non-Christian religions and found truth but also ambiguity and shallowness or incompleteness. I listened to Protestantism and found ambiguity and disagreement there and also, later, incompleteness as well. I listened to JWs and found sincerity but false beliefs based mainly on a desire to be “set apart”.

I began listening to Catholicism and began, to my surprise, to see that something was still lacking in me-having to do with things she taught or proclaimed. The doctrine on justification, for one thing, is so central. In Catholicism one is justified by becoming-by being wrought into- the being God always wanted him to be- not merely by a capricious swipe of a magical “salvation wand”, “OK, today I choose to save you-but not you over there”. We have a role to play in our salvation. Even though we have nothing to do with our very existence, He nonetheless wants us to participate in our molding –in our obtaining integrity, or wholeness/holiness. He seeks to draw us- writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds but not without our consent and cooperation-not without our wills being involved-because there can be no real change, no integrity, without us-doing our part. And in Catholicism as in nowhere else is conveyed the true nature of that change, which is simply to become a being perfected-over time- in love.

Have Catholics-including leaders- not always practiced this virtue, and ignored this Catholic message? Yes, they have done so. But, OTOH, have other Catholics practiced it* in spades* over the centuries, building hospitals and orphanages and schools and universities, promoting the pursuit of excellence in all things for the good of man and performing works of charity and relief work and feeding the poor and giving, giving, giving, making altruism an authentic human value in a world where power and greed and the glorification of self reigned over any such nonsense as loving God or ones fellow man? Yes, they have.

Most of the errors people fall into have been fought over long ago, correct doctrine hammered out by faithful people led by the HS and decided on at councils. Most errors or heresy are nothing new. In any case, if one continues to listen intently, I believe they’ll end up hearing the same voice in the CC that they find in the bible, speaking the same message.

The authority of the CC derives from the same place the authority of Gods written word derives from-Him.

 

[paul_c]

From where does the CC authority derive? and, more importantly, how do you know?

I think that the Catholic Churches define authority comes from Jesus. This is documented in scripture. We’ve discussed Matthew 16 and Matthew 28 alot with you as you know and there are many other places that support the churches authority as well.

While the scriptural support should be sufficient, there have also been untold miracles to support the churche’s authority as well. Incurruptible saints (those whose bodies do not deteriorate even centuries after death). The miraculous stream at Lourdes, the dancing sun at Fatima, the stigmata of Padre Pio, While the church doesn’t require anyone to believe any of these miracles, they are there none the less.

 

[utunumsint]

LOL! No, of course not, UT! The meaning of a word is determined by the immediate context.

Yeah, but this doesn’t seem to be working out for us in John 6. At the very least, we could search out what Spirit and flesh means to John in this Gospel.

For example, for spirit, we have this:

1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
1:33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Here the spirit is a visible entity (at least to John).

3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Here Jesus is making a sharp distinction between flesh and spirit. Perhaps here he means fallen flesh?

3:8: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Now he compares spirit to wind. Something that seems immaterial and invisible.

3:34: For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

What allows us to speak the words of God is the spirit which God gives us.

4:23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

The Father desires us to worship in the spirit and in the truth. I wonder if the two can be separated?

4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So if God is a spirit, immaterial, and invisible, and he also requires us to worship him in truth, what place does that leave flesh?

6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Yes, but what does the spirit quicken or to what does the spirit give life? If our spirit leaves the body, we are no longer alive since we are composite beings of both flesh and spirit. Is he talking about the vital principle of our bodies as the spirit? In the previous passage, Jesus refers to his bodily resurection.

6:62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Could it be that it is the Spirit that inhabits the Eucharist that makes it possible that we also can have eternal life in this way? In which case, 6:3 has no relevance to the reality of the Eucharist, but refers to the means by which the Eucharist is effective for us. By receiving the flesh and blood of Christ, we also receive the Spirit of God. A God who is spirit. Does this make sense? I mean he did say this in Chapter 4

4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps it is the incarnational union of the spirit of God with our worthless flesh that allows him to communicate his spirit to us. Does this make sense? This is the means by which he does this:

14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
14:17: Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

15:26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

16:13: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Maybe the above helps us make sense of all the instances that he uses the word flesh.

6:51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
6:52: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
6:56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

And it is this physical dwelling with Christ in his flesh and blood that we have access to the spirit, without which flesh is useless and dead.

6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

17:1: These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
17:2: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

God gave Christ power over all flesh, but perhaps it is through Christ’s flesh that God gives us to Christ, so that we can literally “dwell in him”.

Some thoughts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Check it out. In Leviticus 17, it says:

10 And if anyone, whether of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing among them, partakes of any blood, I will set myself against that one who partakes of blood and will cut him off from among his people.
11 Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement.

If life is in the blood, and it is the Spirit that gives life, as it says in Genesis 2

2 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

then it would seem to me that flesh is indeed useless without the Spirit that lives in the body, as it says in John 6:63

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

But it is litteraly the body that is quickened, or given life, by the spirit.

It makes sense. When the blood leaves a person, or is separated from the body, so does a person’s life or spirit. The image of breath or wind found in both John and in Genesis fits in well with this idea.

So if the blood truly is inseparable from the spirit, then when Jesus talks about eating his body and blood, the key part is the spirit that dwells in the blood that gives life to the body.

God bless,
Ut

 

[clmowry]

Now please tell me your conclusion and we will see if the premises support it and there are not LE (logical errors).

Given 1-10 (and frankly, I think believing those to be true is the hard part) I concluded:

Either God has failed in 7, or the Apostles, led by the Holy Spirit, provided humans with a sure way to communicate what God wants them to believe (and/or do) and that the Apostles preserved His teaching in such a manner that they would be able to clearly show the way to any human being in any place for all time.

If you believe instead that God has failed in 7, I think you have to go back and ask yourself can He in fact be God if His plan has failed. If not then 1-10 cannot all be true.

If you still maintain that 1-10 are true, then we need to look for possible candidates for a method by which the Apostles arranged to “clearly show the way to any human being in any place for all time.”

I think you will find that there is a pretty short list of logical potential candidates.

But let’s see if you accept this conclusion first.

Chuck

1.) There is a moral monotheistic God.
2.) Human beings exist and have an eternal soul.
3.) God wants each human being to be with Him forever in Heaven.
4.) God has given human beings free will.
5.) God cares what human beings believe (and/or do) and will not accept those who reject Him into Heaven.
6.) There cannot be multiple conflicting ways to align our will with Gods will (i.e. Not reject God.)
7.) Given 1-6, God “must” provide humans with a sure way to know what He wants them to believe (and/or do.)
8.) He cared so much about 3 and therefore 7 that He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, to Earth to show us once and for all the Way to obtain eternal Life with Him in Heaven.
9.) Jesus taught His disciples, the Apostles, this Way.
10.) Jesus sent His Apostles to teach this Way to the “ends of the Earth.”