What do Protestants think about these verses?

[Melkite_Sword]

Quote:Originally Posted by Melkite Sword
Be careful drawing that conclusion. In John 6:53-58, 66-67, Jesus was speaking about his blood.Jesus was very much a human. Where does scripture make the connection your making,blood=water? I’m also yet to see a scripture that refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘God’s blood’… I mean that is one BIG jump.

For whom? Why is this hard to believe, Melkite? Blood is life, isn’t it?

Quote:The life of every creature is in its blood…[Leviticus 17:14]

Jesus said:
Quote:"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.[John 14:6]

But if this is not enough proof, please read on…

Quote:Isaiah 12:2 - Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.

Quote:Matthew 1:21 - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yahshua [JESUS]: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Hebrew: Yah = “God/I am/is become”] + Shua = “salvation/to save”]

Isaiah 12:2 - God is become salvation, Yashua - whom you call Jesus - the well from which we draw life-giving water.

Agreed, just not with how you’ve tried to draw this conclusion. I just don’t agree with your connection between the true blood of Jesus and the life giving water Jesus gives which is his Holy Spirit. You have to understand that these are two fundamentally different things Jesus was speaking about… Jesus was consistent in saying that the Holy Spirit is life giving water… why did he decide to change his mind all of a sudden in this verse and call it his blood… does that mean Jesus told his apostles to drink his Holy Spirit at the last supper, where John 6 finds its ultimate fullfillment? I don’t mean to be rude but… your conclusions aren’t making much sense!.. I Believe ‘the life of the flesh is in the blood’ AMEN, thats exactly why Jesus tells us to drink his blood, and thats exactly why his disciples left, drinking blood was forbidden to the Jews for this very reason.

Now just put the pieces together, Melkite, when rereading the verses below…

Quote:John 6:53 - Then Jesus [God who is become the well of salvation] 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.

And then Jesus is recorded saying…

Quote:John 7:37-39

37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus [God who is become the well of salvation] stood and said in a loud voice,

“If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.”

39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

So when you read the above; when first you read Jesus’ quote, and then read the writer’s explanation of what Jesus was actually talking about, what conclusion do you draw?

Ask yourself: How many things were we offered to drink, from Jesus? Wasn’t there only one important thing Jesus offered us as drink; the drink he kept offering all throughout his ministry? But if this still isn’t enough proof, read the situation of “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman” [John 4:7-26]

The most telling verse in this scene is this one:

Quote:John 4:14 - But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Quote:Originally Posted by Melkite Sword
No Jesus didn’t say ‘drink the Holy Spirit’ in John 6. Thats what you want him to be saying.

No, it’s not what I want…It’s explained in John 7:37-39 above…with none of my words, but the writer’s own explanation:

John 7:37-39 - Jesus’ Living Water = Jesus’ Spirit.

Your not reading John 6 in its intended context, notice nowhere does Jesus say to drink his blood except John 6 and the last supper. The Holy Spirit is the living water, i believe that like you. But simply put, Jesus never refered to the Holy Spirit as blood… its just not there… sorry to disappoint . Jesus uses many figures of speech about himself in the Gospels, such as drinking his life giving water, he also speaks literally allot of the time. The key is how to understand his words in context, and the context tells us that Jesus was speaking literally when he said ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’. I will explain this further in the next post.

 

[Melkite_Sword]

Quote:Originally Posted by Melkite Sword
…if Jesus knew they took him literally but he intended it to be taken figuratively, why didn’t he explain what he meant?

Take care that you are not guilty of your own assumptions, Melkite. Jesus answered your question in the very passage you reference.

Quote:John 6:60 - Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, "Does this offend you?

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

63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth [gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”

Remember the rule I first gave prior to postimg my explanations. “Through all see, many will not see.”

Yes, I do remember. What is your point? The Church understands all of Jesus’ words. scripture tells us ‘The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of Truth’ (1Tim 3:15) the truth that Christ reveals is entrusted to the Church, the same Church Christ promised to ‘be with until the end of this world’(Matt 28:20), The same Church that has the Holy Spirit guiding it, the same Church built on Peter (the Rock) that Christ said ‘the Gates of hell shall not prevail against’ (Matt 16:18), the same Church St Ignatius, successor of Peter and disciple of John calls ‘Catholic’ in the year 107.

Now I assume your refering to this verse (common objection):

“63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth [gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.”

I agree with that verse 100%, as a Catholic I’m supposed to believe all of scripture. so lets see what this is telling us. Firstly what does Jesus mean by ‘the flesh profiteth nothing’ now the common interpretation of this is that he was saying that his flesh means nothing (he wasn’t speaking literally) but that could not be the case, Jesus’ flesh profits us more than anything in the Universe, or else his incarnation in the flesh, death in the flesh and resurrection in the flesh are all meaningless which therefore means, in the words of St Paul; “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17–18). So If he wasn’t refering to his flesh what was he refering to?, he was speaking about ‘carnal understanding’ the understanding of the flesh apart from the Spirit of God. Instead of believing Christ’s words on faith, they put there own fallen human reason above complete trust in Christ’s words, refusing the Spirit of grace. Also, nowhere in scripture does spirit mean figurative or else God is figurative because ‘God is Spirit’(John 4:24)

 

[Melkite_Sword]

Now I suggest you consider these points:

a) The people at the time Jesus was talking took him literally ‘This saying is hard who can accept it’, they also took him literally when he said he came down from heaven; ‘41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?", why would they be right in taking him literally here but not when he said to ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’, in both cases he made no attempt of correcting them.

b) everytime Jesus did not speak literally and the people misunderstood he would correct them, not so in this case. For example;

John 3:1-6

"1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus misunderstands and Jesus corrects him. Although in John 6:61 his answer is simply “Does this offend you?”

c) Jesus here lost 5000 of his disciples, The only faithful ones were 11 of his apostles, Judas stopped believing here too.

d) John 6:70-71 “Jesus said to them, “I chose you, the twelve, did I not? Yet one of you is a devil.” Jesus spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. He, one of the twelve was to betray him.” This only happens at the last supper, Matt 26:21 "While they were eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you: one of you will betray me.” and you know the rest of the story. Jesus also at this time shows the apostles what he meant in John 6:52-59, when he finally says, exactly three years later (The discourse in John 6 happened at the passover) “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup and gave thanks, and passed it to them saying, “Drink this all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:26-28).

e) St Paul later takes the last supper account to prove to the Corinthians why they should be respectful of there gatherings;

1 Corinthians 11:17-30

" 17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good…23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Peace

 

[Joshua27]

Jesus was consistent in saying that the Holy Spirit is life giving water… why did he decide to change his mind all of a sudden in this [Chapter] and call it his blood…

Now consider these points

a) …in both cases he made no attempt of correcting them.

b) everytime Jesus did not speak literally and the people misunderstood he would correct them, not so in this case.

Melkite, Jesus explains why he makes no attempt to correct many except those who God had sent to him. These people were not supposed to understand…God did not send them to him. Many were not called but followed through their own desire. Not everyone was meant to know the truth.

Verses of John in context and in order…

John 4…

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 5…Jesus performs miracles…

John 6…Jesus feeds the multitude and leaves…people/disciples follow [by your claim 5000]

Many disciples show up who were only following him because He fed them earlier with the loaves and fishes…and this was the only reason why they were looking to find him again. To be fed.

24 - When the people…seeking for Jesus.

25 - and when they found him…they said to him, Teacher, when camest thou hither?

26 - Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, you want to be with me because I fed you, not because you understood the miraculous signs.

27 - Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."

30 - So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?

31 - After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, 'Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat."

Then Jesus chooses to start talking about himself as Food which will truly feed them…

49 - Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

51 - I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh."

52 Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat!?”

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.

60 - Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”

63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

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.

65 Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”

66 - At this point many of his [5000] disciples turned away and deserted him.

John 7…

37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.

38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

This is why he began to speak on his flesh and blood to eat…food was the only reason many showed up; for a free meal. They didn’t care about his mission. Jesus knew God had not sent them (particularly) to him, and he knew that those who were supposed to be there would understand.

does that mean Jesus told his apostles to drink his Holy Spirit at the last supper, where John 6 finds its ultimate fullfillment? I don’t mean to be rude but… your conclusions aren’t making much sense!..

That’s ok. Maybe this isn’t for you to read.

John 6:60 - …“This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”

63 - It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

But “Yes”, to your question…At the last supper, He told them to be filled with His Spirit, but not only that. He also told them to follow his example.

 

[hugefeet]

as a non-catholic I do not believe the Church was founded on Peter. It was founded on the Rock, the lion of the tribe of Judah. Christ founded the church on himself.

The text could be easily translated “Thou are Peter, a small stone, but on Myself, the boulder, I will build my Church.”

Other passages indicate Christ to be the stone the Builders rejected that became the head of the corner. (cornerstone that sets the square of a building)

Scripture clearly indicates that Peter was no more or less than the other apostles.
And that Christ was the stone He was referring to.

even if i believed that peter was the first pope, which I don’t since he had to be continually corrected and taught, there is no indication in scripture whatever of that papacy being hereditary or passed on to anybody. Such a belief is founded on tradition purely as a way to propagate the power structure. (which the church abused for centuries)

 

[Melkite_Sword]

Quote:Originally Posted by Melkite Sword
Jesus was consistent in saying that the Holy Spirit is life giving water… why did he decide to change his mind all of a sudden in this [Chapter] and call it his blood…

Now consider these points

a) …in both cases he made no attempt of correcting them.

b) everytime Jesus did not speak literally and the people misunderstood he would correct them, not so in this case.

Melkite, Jesus explains why he makes no attempt to correct many except those who God had sent to him. These people were not supposed to understand…God did not send them to him. Many were not called but followed through their own desire. Not everyone was meant to know the truth.

God desires everyone to know the truth, it is people who harden their hearts, God doesn’t pick which people he wants to save, Christ died for the sins of the world.1 Timothy 2:4 states God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” . The second problem with what you just stated is assuming that you are correct and the disciples weren’t meant to know the truth, what about the 12 apostles? weren’t they meant to know the truth? yet he gave them the option to leave aswell. In verse 67 Jesus asks the 12 “Will you also leave?” he didn’t try and explain himself to them, he gave them the option of leaving, why? because he didn’t need to explain himself to them, he said what he meant. unlike Matt 16:5-12 for instance were he had to clear their misunderstandings. Regarding your interpretation of verse 44 “No one can come to me unless he is drawn by the Father who sent me” This is infact the key to interpreting verse 63 “it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (I should have mentioned this earlier), The Spirit of God draws us to the truth, yet some do not open their hearts to Him and accept his words as they are, thinking carnally rather than allowing the Father’s spirit to draw them to truth, much like the 5000.

Peace

 

[Joshua27]

God desires everyone to know the truth, it is people who harden their hearts, God doesn’t pick which people he wants to save, Christ died for the sins of the world.1 Timothy 2:4 states God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” . The second problem with what you just stated is assuming that you are correct and the disciples weren’t meant to know the truth, what about the 12 apostles? weren’t they meant to know the truth? yet he gave them the option to leave aswell. In verse 67 Jesus asks the 12 “Will you also leave?” he didn’t try and explain himself to them, he gave them the option of leaving, why? because he didn’t need to explain himself to them, he said what he meant. unlike Matt 16:5-12 for instance were he had to clear their misunderstandings. Regarding your interpretation of verse 44 “No one can come to me unless he is drawn by the Father who sent me” This is infact the key to interpreting verse 63 “it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (I should have mentioned this earlier),

Sure, God desires everyone but not at the same time. The twelve were given to Jesus by God while the 5000 were not just yet. There is a hierarchy - a structure or government - God is setting up for His kingdom, where “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”.

Jesus didn’t say “you’re free to leave”, he simply asked them - tested them - with his question; “Will you also leave?” They conveyed the answer “no”.

Again the following…

Matthew 13:10-13

10 His disciples [the 12] came and asked him, “Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?”

11 And he answered them, “To you [his 12] it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [all other disciples] it [the secrets to the kingdom] has not been given.

12 For to the one who has [the secret knowledge], more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not [the secret knowledge], even what he has will be taken away.

13 This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

This is the rule: Not everyone is meant to understand the truth because not everyone will handle it the same way. Jesus knew some would understand while others were meant to misunderstand and betray him.

The Spirit of God draws us to the truth, yet some do not open their hearts to Him and accept his words as they are, thinking carnally rather than allowing the Father’s spirit to draw them to truth, much like the 5000.

Peace

Exactly true, but listen to what you’re saying, Melkite…

Truly, it is The Spirit vs. **Carnal Thinking **

---

Here’s Princeton’s definition of “carnal”:

animal(a): marked by the appetites and passions of the body; “animal instincts”; “carnal knowledge”; “fleshly desire”; of or relating to the body or flesh; “carnal remains”.​

• Animals literally eat real flesh and drink real blood to stay alive, don’t they? And yet they still die.
• Most of us literally eat [animal] flesh and (for some) [animal] blood to stay alive, don’t we? And yet we still die.
• The early forefathers literally ate real bread to stay alive in the wilderness, didn’t they? And yet they still died.
• Many of the disciples following him wanted another literal, physical meal like the one they ate earlier.

Now, by your own admission thinking in “carnal terms” is incorrect in understanding the words of Jesus. Again, thinking in “carnal terms” is the wrong way to understand the words coming from Jesus’ lips. In other words we must understand Jesus’ words as they relate to the Spirit.

But you suggest:

a) Understanding His words as “literal flesh and literal blood = salvation” is Spiritual? And yet…
b) Understanding His words as “spiritual flesh and spiritual blood = salvation” is Carnal?

John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: **the words that I speak unto you [the words Jesus just spoke to them about his flesh and blood], they [flesh and blood] are Spirit, and they are life **[italics not mine].

And to this day, it is this the truth that many will not understand because God is still establishing the government [governing body] of his Kingdom. So my words are only for those who are supposed to visit this thread and read and understand them.

 

[larkin31]

What do Protestants think about these verses?

I like these verses a lot.

(I am a former Protestant)

 

[RedBert]

So what did Jesus mean in John 6?

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him.

Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the SAME result - eternal life.

One verse (v54) is figurativeand one verse (v40) is literal .

and that is what Protestants think of that part of John 6

 

[Melkite_Sword]

as a non-catholic I do not believe the Church was founded on Peter. It was founded on the Rock, the lion of the tribe of Judah. Christ founded the church on himself.

The text could be easily translated “Thou are Peter, a small stone, but on Myself, the boulder, I will build my Church.”

Other passages indicate Christ to be the stone the Builders rejected that became the head of the corner. (cornerstone that sets the square of a building)

Scripture clearly indicates that Peter was no more or less than the other apostles.
And that Christ was the stone He was referring to.

even if i believed that peter was the first pope, which I don’t since he had to be continually corrected and taught, there is no indication in scripture whatever of that papacy being hereditary or passed on to anybody. Such a belief is founded on tradition purely as a way to propagate the power structure. (which the church abused for centuries)

1. I assume your refering to the greek, where Jesus uses the word ‘Petros’ for Peter and the word ‘Petra’ at the end of the statement; ‘Thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my Church’, many Protestants try to say that ‘Petros’ means ‘little pebble’ whilst ‘Petra’ means ‘big rock’ somehow refering to Jesus. Now the problem with this is that the distinction between ‘Petra’ and ‘Petros’ is only made in Attic greek, this was a form of greek used centuries before the New Testament was ever written. The New Testament was written in Koine greek, where both the words ‘Petros’ and ‘Petra’ are synonyms, where ‘Petra’ is merely ‘rock’ in the feminine whilst ‘Petros’ is ‘rock’ in the masculine. The word Petra ofcourse couldn’t be used for Peter, since he was a man, the masculine was used. This whole pebble/stone buisness are merely rumours, no self respecting greek scholar Protestant or Catholic holds this view.
2. Jesus didn’t speak greek anyway, he spoke Aramiac. The gospels are translations of Jesus’ words into the greek. In aramaic their is only one word for ‘rock’ and thats Cephas. In John’s account of this event he uses the Aramaic. 'Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, son of John, but you shall be called Cephas (which means Rock)” (John 1:42)
3. Yes, the scriptures do describe Christ as the stone the builders reject, who has become the cornerstone. That doesn’t disqualify Peter from being the Rock, remember these are figurative words. Christ named Peter the Rock of the Church, Christ himself is the invisible foundation, Peter is the visible foundation appointed by Christ. Peter can only be the foundation (Rock) because Christ is the cornerstone.
4. so whats so special about Peter?. Well Jesus told Peter something amazing he told him;

“19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:19)

Now, the kings of the Old Testament used to appoint a Prime minister, who used to rule the kingdom in a position of great authority, serving under the king. This is shown in Isaiah 22:22, where king David gives Eliakim the keys of the house of David. Jesus quotes this almost verbatum except applying it to Peter. The holder of the keys in the Old Testament davidic kingdom used to pass down this authority ‘the keys’ once he died. They were also known as Father (Isa 22:21), which is what the word ‘Pope’ literally means.

“22And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

I could quote several other verses if you like, showing the authority of Peter, his succesion is not explicitly mentioned in scripture, its is implict though, knowing that the succession of Prime Ministers occured in the davidic kingdom. We also have other historical sources outside scripture, such as the writings of his succesors for example Pope St Clement’s letter to the Corinthians in the year 80 AD.

Peace

 

[hugefeet]

A few replies to this about Peter being the First Pope.

1. I don’t see “Pope” anywhere in scripture. A purely made up term
   .
2. Peter was anything but a rock upon which to build a church considering he clearly believed, even after Pentecost, the gospel was only for the jews. God had to slap him with a vision to get that idea out of his head. Would I choose to make a representative of someone on earth to spread my Gospel that hated all gentiles??
3. “implicit” is pretty weak to build an entire church dogma around like ex cathedra (sic) a whole bureaucracy of cardinals, bishops and thousands of other nameless clergy. I need something a ton more black and white than “implicit” to build that kind of doctrine upon. Seriously “implicit” can be anything if you bring in enough people.
4. Revelation clearly teaches that Christ is the great judge of the lost and the damned. Christ earned that right by submitting to the humiliation of the cross and dieing for us.
   I would suggest a slow reading of rev 3, 4, 5 where Christ judges the Churches and continually asserts his authority. Where is Peter?? not to be seen or mentioned.
5. Peter is no where mentioned in revelation except MAYBE as one of the 24 elders. Wouldn’t such an important person as the one with the keys to heaven and hell be mentioned?? The keys to heaven and hell are mentioned, but Peter is no where to be found in the passage.

bottom line, and i say this with respect but also from years of experience:
Peter was a pretty poor pope for being God’s representative on earth. Many of the other popes were debauched, political, and downright wicked.

A true representative of God would be seriously better at the job than most of what I have seen and studied. I have seen protestant pastors churched and banned from the ministry for alot less than some Popes did for a lifetime.

 

[Roblox84]

I’ll bite - even though Imkingdad and folks like him will disregard the fact that we are being invited to respond and then will be attacked for our responses.

The fourth of seven signs in the Fourth Gospel. Very eucharistic in nature. Certainly more than a meal, it’s a feast, as in v. 10 where Jesus has the people “recline” (anepesen/anepese), not merely “sit” - which in some translations is poorly translated. Reclining was the posture of a feast, just as at Passover. Jesus is the bread of life and the bread of heaven, the gift of eternal life.

Self-explanatory. I don’t know many who would deny the apostolic tradition. My communion certainly doesn’t - scripture has to be viewed by the lenses of faith, reason, and tradition.

Peter became the leader of the disciples. It is of enormous comfort to us all, as Peter went from being fickle and a denier of Jesus to being a leader.

Paul’s testimony to the church at Colossae while in prison, for the people to find their faithfulness in Christ and in servant ministry. Paul had never been to Colossae and so his introduction to them is more personal and explanative than in some of his other letters. Anyone who serves Christ will suffer with him.

Faith without works is dead. That’s pretty clear. From my own Methodist tradition, John Wesley was fairly clear that works of piety (such as prayer, lectio divina, fasting, and the Eucharist), works of mercy (ministry to the poor, visiting the sick and imprisoned) were all, along with the sacraments, means of grace. His sermon is here, and he addresses works and faith towards the end of the sermon.

So… let’s see if people really want to hear what one Protestant thinks, or will now place all of the above on a tee and proceed to swing at it.

I don’t know about all Protestant faiths but this one is just directed to the ones that believe in the pre trib rapture.

“Paul’s testimony to the church at Colossae while in prison, for the people to find their faithfulness in Christ and in servant ministry. Paul had never been to Colossae and so his introduction to them is more personal and explanative than in some of his other letters. Anyone who serves Christ will suffer with him.”

Where do they get out of this statement that they will not have to suffer and will just be taken up to heaven during the tribulation

 

[hugefeet]

I think its cute how forums of this type just ignore any real debate and just keep pounding some statement hoping if they pound it long enough, it will become the truth.
Such a statement is the following:

“Peter became the leader of the disciples. It is of enormous comfort to us all, as Peter went from being fickle and a denier of Jesus to being a leader.”

absolutely false of course as any real student of the bible knows that Paul and Peter fought continually over the right of gentiles to hear the gospel and whether Paul was the 12th apostle.

While the other apostles were spreading out over the world, Peter was holed up in Jerusalem thinking the Gospel was only for the Jews. I expect the other apostles pretty much ignored him.

Peter, in fact, in his later life admitted his great errors and apologized to Paul over both issues.

As further proof of Peter’s lack of leadership, his writings are minuscule and almost doctrinally irrelevant compared to the writings of Paul in Romans and John’s writings in John and Revelation.

The sad fact is that Peter lead by bad example and arrogance more than any other if he was a leader at all.

None of these points will be truly discussed of course, out of fear of going to hell just to question basic RCC dogma. what a sad way to live.

The truth is in scripture and there for anyone that honestly seeks it and thirsts for it. teachers are great, traditions are ok, but traditions that conflict with scripture are wrong and should be abandoned.

 

[hugefeet]

"Where do they get out of this statement that they will not have to suffer and will just be taken up to heaven during the tribulation "

concerning a pre trib rapture:
wow you ask a tough question to answer in this type of format but I will give you my view in bullet points. It may not satisfy, but i will give it a shot.

1. The proof text for the rapture is perceived to be in 1Thess 4:17. whether you are a pre trib, mid trib or post trib.
2. After John is caught up into heaven in Rev. 4:1, the Church is no longer referenced except as they are in Heaven. There are people "saved’ in revelation, but they are never refereed to as the Church. That is the pre trib proof text.
3. There is also the clear teaching of scripture in other passages that God’s people never suffers judgment meant for the lost. Examples are the children of Israel never suffering the plagues of Egypt and the rapture is pictured when they go through the Red Sea to escape the final annihilation of Egypt.

Another of example is God bringing the Righteous out of Sodom and Gomorrah before the great judgment of those cities.

Thats a brief unsatisfying view, there is much much more about mid trib and other issues.
Good men disagree on these issues, i know good men that disagree with me, but the study is profitable and uplifting.

 

[Erethorn]

As further proof of Peter’s lack of leadership, his writings are minuscule and almost doctrinally irrelevant compared to the writings of Paul in Romans and John’s writings in John and Revelation.

Are you, by chance, referring to Peter’s writings from the Scriptures ? You know, those that are divinely inspired, useful for salvation, the ones to which we are not allowed to add anything ?

Are you, by any chance, calling a part of the scripture “minuscule” and “almost doctrinally irrelevant”

 

[hugefeet]

Are you, by chance, referring to Peter’s writings from the Scriptures ? You know, those that are divinely inspired, useful for salvation, the ones to which we are not allowed to add anything ?

Are you, by any chance, calling a part of the scripture “minuscule” and “almost doctrinally irrelevant”

certainly they are not in absolute terms but you read what you wanted to see.

The point was that as evidence of Peter’s Leadership they are lacking. For example, if the RCC had decided that Paul was the first Pope, there is ample evidence for that both in scripture and Paul’s actions.

Paul was a leader by any and all definitions. Peter on the other hand was a grasping for power immature that only by the grace of God became anything much more.

 

[Melkite_Sword]

A few replies to this about Peter being the First Pope.

1. I don’t see “Pope” anywhere in scripture. A purely made up term
   .
2. Peter was anything but a rock upon which to build a church considering he clearly believed, even after Pentecost, the gospel was only for the jews. God had to slap him with a vision to get that idea out of his head. Would I choose to make a representative of someone on earth to spread my Gospel that hated all gentiles??
3. “implicit” is pretty weak to build an entire church dogma around like ex cathedra (sic) a whole bureaucracy of cardinals, bishops and thousands of other nameless clergy. I need something a ton more black and white than “implicit” to build that kind of doctrine upon. Seriously “implicit” can be anything if you bring in enough people.
4. Revelation clearly teaches that Christ is the great judge of the lost and the damned. Christ earned that right by submitting to the humiliation of the cross and dieing for us.
   I would suggest a slow reading of rev 3, 4, 5 where Christ judges the Churches and continually asserts his authority. Where is Peter?? not to be seen or mentioned.
5. Peter is no where mentioned in revelation except MAYBE as one of the 24 elders. Wouldn’t such an important person as the one with the keys to heaven and hell be mentioned?? The keys to heaven and hell are mentioned, but Peter is no where to be found in the passage.

bottom line, and i say this with respect but also from years of experience:
Peter was a pretty poor pope for being God’s representative on earth. Many of the other popes were debauched, political, and downright wicked.

A true representative of God would be seriously better at the job than most of what I have seen and studied. I have seen protestant pastors churched and banned from the ministry for alot less than some Popes did for a lifetime.

 

[Melkite_Sword]

A few replies to this about Peter being the First Pope.

1. I don’t see “Pope” anywhere in scripture. A purely made up term

“Bible”, the term, isn’t anywhere in scripture either. What he’s called hasn’t got anything to do with it. “Pope” comes from the latin ‘papa’ which simply means ‘Father’. Where in scripture does it say everything has to be in scripture?
.

1. Peter was anything but a rock upon which to build a church considering he clearly believed, even after Pentecost, the gospel was only for the jews. God had to slap him with a vision to get that idea out of his head. Would I choose to make a representative of someone on earth to spread my Gospel that hated all gentiles??

The Greek and Aramaic tell us he was ‘the Rock’ Cephas/Petros, upon which Christ built his Church as I have clearly demonstrated. All of the apostles believed the Gospel was only for Jews early on. At Pentecost, the apostles weren’t speaking to Gentiles, they were speaking to Jews from around the known world coming to Jerusalem for Pentecost. I don’t see how any of this has to do with anything, he was human, and he made mistakes.

1. “implicit” is pretty weak to build an entire church dogma around like ex cathedra (sic) a whole bureaucracy of cardinals, bishops and thousands of other nameless clergy. I need something a ton more black and white than “implicit” to build that kind of doctrine upon. Seriously “implicit” can be anything if you bring in enough people.

Implicit in scripture yes. for instance the succession of Judas by Matthias, implies apostolic succession. Apostolic Succession is part of Sacred Tradition, it doesn’t have to be explicitly mentioned in scripture, succession was happening even before the Biblical canon was decided by who else but councils of Catholic bishops and the Pope in the 4th century. Carthage, Rome etc…

1. Revelation clearly teaches that Christ is the great judge of the lost and the damned. Christ earned that right by submitting to the humiliation of the cross and dieing for us.
   I would suggest a slow reading of rev 3, 4, 5 where Christ judges the Churches and continually asserts his authority. Where is Peter?? not to be seen or mentioned.

Christ is the judge. He has all authority in the world, that doesn’t exclude his authority over Peter. Nope Peter isn’t there. Sola Revelations 3, 4, 5 is new to me. If its quantity you want then you might want to consider this; from Matthew to Revelations Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.

1. Peter is no where mentioned in revelation except MAYBE as one of the 24 elders. Wouldn’t such an important person as the one with the keys to heaven and hell be mentioned?? The keys to heaven and hell are mentioned, but Peter is no where to be found in the passage.

try one of the 12 foundation stones of the city wall of the New Jerusalem (the church) is built.

bottom line, and i say this with respect but also from years of experience:
Peter was a pretty poor pope for being God’s representative on earth. Many of the other popes were debauched, political, and downright wicked.

A true representative of God would be seriously better at the job than most of what I have seen and studied. I have seen protestant pastors churched and banned from the ministry for alot less than some Popes did for a lifetime.

Popes are human. There are good Popes and bad popes. Jesus chose 12 one betrayed him.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I would like to get your thoughts on these verses and in no way do I wish to question your beliefs. I simply wish to started a discussion done with an open mind.

Here they are:

John 6:53-58, 66-67

*“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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.’ After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’” *

All of the answers for John 6 can be found in the words of Peter at the end…

67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and** we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Now does Peter talk about the bread? NO!

He addresses what the others left over, the divinity of Christ, Peter heard the message that one would be saved by BELIEVING in Christ as He had taught in this discourse.**

 

[myfavoritmartin]

**James 2:24 **

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Your thoughts?

James is preaching to an anti-nomianist crowd.