"We Believe Scripture, Except When It Supports Catholic Dogma"

[NotWorthy]

J****John chapter 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.****

I used to wonder about this statement, until I heard Tim Staples talk about it.

In John 6, you must eat “My Flesh” according to Jesus. It’s always “my flesh”. The only other time he says “the flesh” before this verse, he calls it “the flesh of the son of man”.

So when Jesus switches from “My flesh” saving us to “the flesh availeth nothing”, he is switching to the normal NT reference to “the flesh”.

Those who live by “the flesh” are people of this world. This is what Jesus is talking of when he says “The Flesh” availeth nothing.

 

[Mimi]

Heavens, yes! They ain’t just for ol’ folk, you know. I highly recommend the Sunsweet Cherry Essence, Lemon Essence and Orange Essence pitted prunes. Now go get yourself a bag!

Orange Essence Prunes are THE best!!
I eat some every day.

Also recently added dried cherries & chocolate covered almonds, a real super anti-oxidant sweet treat.

Sorry for getting OT!
Mimi

 

[theLogos]

My apologies for the intermittent replies. This is a weird month for me. Back this week but gone again the next.

Hi NotWorthy,

After becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ and examining various writings from different religions one common practice I find amongst religions is to quote only those sayings from a particular author that appear to support their particular viewpoint, and this without regards to the rest of the comments of that author on the very same subject explaining his position. Oftentimes when I would go to read that author or source for myself, I find there are many passages, in context that are not quoted. Sadly I am finding this practice heavily in RC apology.

I’m not saying you are doing this on purpose NotWorthy, perhaps it is only what you were taught but Augustine explains rather plainly what he means by Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist and how it is to be interpreted and understood.

I’m not saying to ignore your snippets, but to only look at those alone and not consider Augustine’s own explanation of what he means would be to pull his own words out of the context of his writings on the subject which would not be a fair representation to this authors view of the subject. I hope you would agree that if we are to represent an authors view of a subject that any individual statements, sentences or clauses must be viewed in light of all their teaching on the subject for a fair and accurate representation.

I was discussing the passage of John chapter 6 with Teflon in another thread and perhaps it would benefit if I posted some of the material from Augustine’s own words for your edification. Please understand I am allowing Augustine to speak for himself, no need to bold, underline, or italicize.

This is taken word for word from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine where he is instructing when to interpret a passage literally or figuratively.

\ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE\Book Three\Chapter 15 - Rule for Interpreting Figurative Expressions\ - ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE\Book Three\Chapter 16 - Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions\

1. The tyranny of lust being thus over-thrown, charity reigns through its supremely just laws of love to God for His own sake, and love to one’s self and one’s neighbor for God’s sake. Accordingly, in regard to figurative expressions, a rule such as the following will be observed, to carefully turn over in our minds and meditate upon what we read till an interpretation be found that tends to establish the reign of love. Now, if when taken literally it at once gives a meaning of this kind, the expression is not to be considered figurative.
2. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,” one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,” we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”-that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.” The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, “help not a sinner.” Understand, therefore, that “sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

Think about this NotWorthy in light of the snippets you gave me.

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

Absolutely he did and in the context of Augustine’s own words He held his own body figuratively. Augustine also makes reference to the figurative interpretation as being considered the spiritual interpretation (one which I and many conservative Evangelical’s hold) while the literal one, a carnal interpretation (ie. the literal flesh held in current RC and also some ECF’s).

If you read further in Augustine’s exposition of the Psalm’s, particularly Psalm 99 and paragraph 8 you’ll read the following.

1. “O magnify the Lord our God” (ver. 5). Magnify Him truly, magnify Him well. Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who hath wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, “who justifieth the ungodly.” …“And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy.” What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek
   u(popodion
   , in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commandeth us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, “The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool.” Doth he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture saith openly, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God”? Yet here it saith, “fall down before His footstool:” and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it saith, “The earth is My footstool.” I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm biddeth me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? and the Scripture telleth me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” …But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."

I couldn’t say it any more plainer than this.

You may also want to read Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractates 26 & 27 are very definitive of his views of this very subject. If you don’t have access I would be happy to copy/paste from my program for you as I have this on my comp once I return from my trip next week.

Kind regards,
theLogos

PS: Also hi guanophore… not ignoring you but getting late here. As I am able to break away I hope to come back sooner than later to discuss more with you.

 

[NotWorthy]

My apologies for the intermittent replies. This is a weird month for me. Back this week but gone again the next.

Hi NotWorthy,

After becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ and examining various writings from different religions one common practice I find amongst religions is to quote only those sayings from a particular author that appear to support their particular viewpoint, and this without regards to the rest of the comments of that author on the very same subject explaining his position. Oftentimes when I would go to read that author or source for myself, I find there are many passages, in context that are not quoted. Sadly I am finding this practice heavily in RC apology.

I’m not saying you are doing this on purpose NotWorthy, perhaps it is only what you were taught but Augustine explains rather plainly what he means by Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist and how it is to be interpreted and understood.

I’m not saying to ignore your snippets, but to only look at those alone and not consider Augustine’s own explanation of what he means would be to pull his own words out of the context of his writings on the subject which would not be a fair representation to this authors view of the subject. I hope you would agree that if we are to represent an authors view of a subject that any individual statements, sentences or clauses must be viewed in light of all their teaching on the subject for a fair and accurate representation.

I was discussing the passage of John chapter 6 with Teflon in another thread and perhaps it would benefit if I posted some of the material from Augustine’s own words for your edification. Please understand I am allowing Augustine to speak for himself, no need to bold, underline, or italicize.

This is taken word for word from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine where he is instructing when to interpret a passage literally or figuratively.

\ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE\Book Three\Chapter 15 - Rule for Interpreting Figurative Expressions\ - ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE\Book Three\Chapter 16 - Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions\

1. The tyranny of lust being thus over-thrown, charity reigns through its supremely just laws of love to God for His own sake, and love to one’s self and one’s neighbor for God’s sake. Accordingly, in regard to figurative expressions, a rule such as the following will be observed, to carefully turn over in our minds and meditate upon what we read till an interpretation be found that tends to establish the reign of love. Now, if when taken literally it at once gives a meaning of this kind, the expression is not to be considered figurative.
2. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,” one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,” we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”-that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.” The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, “help not a sinner.” Understand, therefore, that “sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

Think about this NotWorthy in light of the snippets you gave me.

OK, so far I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Are you referring to something I quoted to you recently on this thread… and just how recently.

In any event, its time for my morning walk, and sadly I won’t be able to look at the rest of your post til later today. But so far, I have no idea what you and our good friend St. Augustine are getting at.

 

[Mach1Man]

Teflon93;3711249]drbible1611 challenged us to do this with only Scripture, so that’s what we’re doing.

It is interesting to note how Catholics, who embrace Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, have less problem addressing this argument per the terms requested than Protestants, who claim to require only Scripture, and in drbible1611’s case, only the KJV.

So I’m game.

Not one word of interpretation, just Scripture.

I want to see how the Protestant interpretation of Scripture is justified without resort to Protestant tradition or magisterium (which they often claim they do not have).

Thus I have posted John 6 from the KJV, that drbible1611 may dazzle us with his ability to interpret without resort to so much as one word not drawn straight from Scripture.

He can rest assured that I will immediately post the full context of any verse he so pulls, so be wary!

Hi Teflon
You are (for lack of a better term) talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say
(Not one word of interpretation), then you say
(I want to see how the Protestant interpretation of Scripture is justified). You have ask your question in such a way that restricts the way it needs to be answered.

Sorry but this does not prove your point.

 

[Always_For_Him]

IMVHO, in practice most people equate the term “Roman Catholic” with “everyone who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome,” so when they use the term that way I’m willing to assume they meant it in that sense. I’d rather save my energy for getting offended at the terms “Romanist” and “Romanism.”

This brings to mind an amuzing analogy. In the South, people ask, “What kind of Coke do you want, Coke, Dr. Pepper, Sprite?” So, I understand the unbrella term “Roman Catholic” as meaning all Catholics to people who are not Catholic. Maybe it is that I am not as knowledgable, but that doesn’t bother me. I take it as I think they mean it as a “universal” term as you will. Kinda like we use Protestant as a univeral term. Just a little thought.

 

[Always_For_Him]

These words have been a stumbling block for me:
KJV John 6:53-58

I’m sorry, but there is a definite ewww factor there.

I did receive an interesting e-mail that discussed how the temple sacrifices were eaten by the priests. If we are a priesthood of believers, would that not be a foreshadowing of things to come?

Everyone understood then that Jesus didn’t mean come up and start biting chunks off of my body. The apostles just believed that he meant what he said and waited for him to reveal just how that was supposed to happen. And he did! Jesus knew the means by which Christians would be “partaking” of his body and blood. Initally, Jesus didn’t say, “Hey, this is how you do it.” But, he revealed the way at the Last Supper. The apostles believed in him, waited for his revelation, understood it when he did, and then went forth and taught that. Other than herecies from people who didn’t believe, the Real Presence in the Eucharist was understood and believed until more recent times. All three of the main Reformers believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Times may change, people may change, but Jesus’ Deposit of Faith the way he gave it to the apostles, and guided the apostles through the Holy Spirit, hasn’t and won’t EVER change. That is where we have to have faith in the people who Jesus gave his Deposit of Faith to and protected it for over 1,500 years - The Catholic Church - NOT a Church established by men in the 1,800’s. There is no way, men in the 1,800’s could have known better the interpretation/understanding of Jesus’ Deposit of Faith than the people He gave it to and the people of the time. Which is pretty obvious. Since the Reformation, look at all of the different “understandings” of Scripture the Protestant Churches have had, have now, and continue to change to have more. There is only One understanding/interpretation of Scripture - and Jesus gave that the Early Church - the Catholic Church. That must be hard for non-C’s to believe because it would mean that their Church has it all wrong - thus, they were taught wrong. I can understand that. But, it doesn’t make it any less true that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded and that they have and teach the correct Deposit of Faith. The men that separated from Catholocism created their own ideology, that is not/could not be inspired by Jesus because he taught One Truth and founded One Church in his lifetime. Everything since then, is man-made and not protected by the Holy Spirit.