What is your view on these verses?

[Duane1966]

GOD I LOVE: I am sure your knowledge of Greek is better than mine, I leave you with these two short articles, the second responds to John 6:63. The peace of our Lord be with you.

[matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html](http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html)   

[catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist)

 

[Duane1966]

One more from Haydock’s Catholic commentary

Ver. 64.The flesh profiteth nothing.Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. —Are spirit and life.By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, asflesh,says St. Augustine,is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, whichtrulyandreallybecome our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. —The flesh[4] of itselfprofiteth nothing,not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that theword made flesh,is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the wordfleshis often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says*the flesh,butmy flesh:*the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.Ver. 68.*Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?*He shews them, says St. Chrysostom, that he stood not in need of them, and so leaves them to their free choice. (Witham) — Jesus Christ remarking in the previous verse that the apostate disciples had left him, to walk no more with him, turning to the twelve, asks them,*Will you also go away?The twelve had heard all that passed; they had seen the Jews strive amongst themselves, and the disciples murmur and leave their Master; they understood what he said in the same literal sense; it could, indeed, bear no other meaning; but when Jesus put the above question to them, leaving them to their free choice, whether to follow him, or to withdraw themselves, Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life;” and therefore art able to make good thy words, however hard and difficult they may appear to others. — We may here admire not only the excellency of their faith, but the plain, yet noble motive of their faith: they believe, because he is Christ, the Son of God, (or, as it is in the Greek, the Son of theliving God) who is absolutely incapable of deceiving his creatures, and whose power is perfectly equal to perform the promises he here makes them.Ver. 69.*Simon Peter,*the chief or head of them, said in the name of the rest:*Lord, to whom shall we go?It is only from thee that we hope for salvation.Thou hast the words of eternal life:we havebelieved, and known,and remain in this belief, thatthou art the Christ, the Son of God.(Witham)

 

[guanophore]

While I understand where your coming from that is not Faith. Those are things which are tangible that they seek and desire and can hold in their hand. So very little faith is required for perusal of the aforementioned. Hence why we must go back to scripture to define it for us.

It is not Godly or divine faith, but it is faith nonetheless. God has fashioned human beings so that faith is part of our makeup. Pagans have faith in the life that is contained in the world and in living things (and sometimes non-living such as crystals). Satanists have faith in the Father of Lies. Muslims have faith in Mohammed and Allah.

Jesus often asked “where is your faith” because people tend to put their faith in places it should not go.

I agree with you, we should go with a biblical definition:

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Heb. 11:1.

So Pharoah had faith that his armies could catch the children of Israel. He never dreamed that the sea would be parted and swallow them all.

Hitler had faith that he could rule Europe and eliminate the Jews. He placed his convictions and hope in his army, and his Nazi regime.

Faith belongs to the person who exercises it:

52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight and followed him on the way. Matt.10

This is why Jesus frequently said “your faith” has healed you/saved you.

Is His doctrine his words? And are His words Spirit and life? Because faith comes by the word of Christ, through hearing his doctrine (unless we hear something other than Christ’s words whereby we receive faith and the Spirit).

Yes, I will concede this point. We will both agree that divine faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

Still fails to answer the question I highlighted in red.
If I have Christ’s Spirit in me, Do I have all of Christ in me, or only part?

This is an interesting question. I think that He reveals Himself to us as much as we are able and disposed to apprehend. How much we can partake of His divine nature is limited by our own human failings.

You misunderstand. It is through faith that the mystery becomes clear. If I believe for example that God is everywhere and then begin to see in my life physical manifestations of that belief (belief coming first mind you) it only confirms my belief and brings me a brighter understanding of it. Same with the teaching of Christ. If Christ’s Spirit dwells in you, can that same Spirit not bring to mind the very things upon which Christ was basing His understanding of his doctrine? Or do you think Christ did not have a reason behind the words he spoke? an understanding of Spiritually minded things that we CAN NOT have unless His Spirit dwell within us? Try and explain a black hole to someone that lives in the middle of some Amazonian jungle. You can’t; but that doesn’t mean you don’t understand it yourself. Same with spiritually minded matters. It is only because of Christ being fully man and fully divine that He was able to communicate that which should have been impossible. And that is why Christ is ‘‘the firstborn of all Creation’’ because by Him we (new creations in Christ) are reborn and we become joint heirs with Christ as sons of God.

Yes. From faith to faith.

14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor. 2

 

[God_I_Love]

It appears that you have set yourself to the task, and I commend you in it. Studying the history of the Church is what brought me to the faith of the Apostles - not only in this, but in all else.

I think you lost me here. The Church encourages us to study our faith.

We are not excommunicated over random thoughts.

But if a stance you take is deemed heretical by some you are thereby excommunicated. Are you not? Is not Jesus the only one who decides who to cut from the vine?

I am not sure where you have derived this premise, ,but it is false. There are things of which we should be afraid.

28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matt 10:28

And who is that? The one with power? All of it? Jesus. So He is whom I fear. But Let me tell you my fear of God. I am So fearful I REJOICE with it. ‘‘37But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’’ Whom am I to fear but Christ Our Lord? When His very Love is with me always with the Holy Spirit of Christ.

It is the duty of the Church to warn the faithful when they are headed over a cliff. Those who have no fear of making a shipwreck of their faith will usually end up on the rocks.

That being said, I agree that authority should not be based in fear, and God’s authority is based in love.

I agree here.

It would be a mistake to assume that children are necessary “carnal minded”. If this were the case, Jesus would not encourage us to become like them in order to receive the faith.
Children often find it much easier to accept abstract concepts that make adults choke.

I agree actually.

For us it is enough that Jesus said it is necessary. Those of us that are fortunate to have access to daily communion find that we can sometimes not even go 24 hours without stepping outside of His grace in many ways large and small.

When we step outside of his grace, we stifle the Spirit within us, and can even separate ourselves from the Vine who gives us life.

But do we not have his Flesh and Blood if we have his Spirit?

Yes, I was very steeped in the heresies of the Reformation, having spent years among non-Catholic communities, and 3 years in a Protestant Seminary. I can certainly vouch that one must thoroughly examine ones positions in the pursuit of Truth.

You must always examine your position. I agree.

 

[God_I_Love]

Clearly separation is possible, as when we die, our bodies remain here on earth when our Spirit is released to the afterlife. Once they are reunited, as in the Resurrection of the body, this separation will no longer exist.

How is this scriptural? Here is what actually occurs upon death. ‘‘51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.’’ 1 Cor 15:52

Jesus taught that we were to eat His Body and drink His Blood in order to achieve this one flesh union with Him. I think you will find that the only time the Body and Blood are equated to his Real Presence (physically) is sacramentally in the Eucharist.

How is it that He is present to us especially in this way as in no other way? I do not know why He chose this mystery in which to be physically present with us, but He did.

So here’s a question… if I receive of the Eucharist once and then never again, what happens? Does His Spirit suddenly cease testifying to Our Spirit? The thing that’s actually going to raise us from the dead?

Yes, I agree, which is why we reject the interpretation that all flesh is of no avail in Jn. 6. Clearly He is not referring to His Own Flesh, which was given in expiation of our sins.

Rather, He is saying that the carnal/fleshly/limited human logic cannot grasp the mystery of the Eucharist.

No he is saying His Spirit is the thing that will come and testify of Him and the Life you have in Christ. And that is how you will have life. If His Words can give spirit and life and His Flesh and Blood can give life then they must be one and inseparable. So unless I always have a Eucharist handy in case of severe sudden death then how will life be in me? By His Spirit which tells us. "NEVER WILL I LEAVE YOU, NEVER WILL I FORSAKE YOU’’ Heb 13:5

Yes. There is nothing wrong with basic human instincts - the problem comes when they are not subject to Christ.

I don’t think I would argue this. God created human flesh, and called it “good”. Then He came in the flesh, and took that flesh with Him into heaven, so that means there is nothing unclean in human flesh, of itself.

This does not exclude the fact that eating His Body and drinking His blood does not also “give life”, for he says both things.

If Both can Give Life then they must be one and the same. I’m not saying you don’t eat His Flesh and Blood. I’m saying, how can you say I’m not if I have His Spirit?

You are in for a good time!

I will say I agree. But I have a number of books on my list. The current one I am about to begin is called Hebrew Religion: It’s Origen And Development by Oesterley and Robinson.

The ante-Nicean fathers give us a glimpse into the mind of the Church after the NT was written.

I will have to check them out.

 

[God_I_Love]

GOD I LOVE: I am sure your knowledge of Greek is better than mine, I leave you with these two short articles, the second responds to John 6:63. The peace of our Lord be with you.

[matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html](http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html)   

[catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist)

There is too much to respond to within the articles but in so far as trogo I think I would have to say that isn’t swaying it. And my knowledge of Greek is not much. I do have access to this website which helped. located here: ‘‘http://gospel-john.com/greek/chapter-6.html’’ As far as the article addressing the verse in context, it doesn’t answer any of the issues I raised. Essentially the Words being His Flesh and Blood by His Spirit which is what unites us to Christ and gives us Life. Being that which resurrects us. Testifying to our Spirit.

 

[God_I_Love]

One more from Haydock’s Catholic commentary

Ver. 64.The flesh profiteth nothing.Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. —Are spirit and life.By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, asflesh,says St. Augustine,is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, whichtrulyandreallybecome our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. —The flesh[4] of itselfprofiteth nothing,not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that theword made flesh,is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the wordfleshis often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says*the flesh,butmy flesh:*the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.Ver. 68.*Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?*He shews them, says St. Chrysostom, that he stood not in need of them, and so leaves them to their free choice. (Witham) — Jesus Christ remarking in the previous verse that the apostate disciples had left him, to walk no more with him, turning to the twelve, asks them,*Will you also go away?The twelve had heard all that passed; they had seen the Jews strive amongst themselves, and the disciples murmur and leave their Master; they understood what he said in the same literal sense; it could, indeed, bear no other meaning; but when Jesus put the above question to them, leaving them to their free choice, whether to follow him, or to withdraw themselves, Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life;” and therefore art able to make good thy words, however hard and difficult they may appear to others. — We may here admire not only the excellency of their faith, but the plain, yet noble motive of their faith: they believe, because he is Christ, the Son of God, (or, as it is in the Greek, the Son of theliving God) who is absolutely incapable of deceiving his creatures, and whose power is perfectly equal to perform the promises he here makes them.Ver. 69.*Simon Peter,*the chief or head of them, said in the name of the rest:*Lord, to whom shall we go?It is only from thee that we hope for salvation.Thou hast the words of eternal life:we havebelieved, and known,and remain in this belief, thatthou art the Christ, the Son of God.(Witham)

Understand I do not deny His Flesh and Blood is in the Eucharist. But if the Eucharist gives life and his words give life which do I choose? If I choose one over the other do I not still have life?

 

[God_I_Love]

It is not Godly or divine faith, but it is faith nonetheless. God has fashioned human beings so that faith is part of our makeup. Pagans have faith in the life that is contained in the world and in living things (and sometimes non-living such as crystals). Satanists have faith in the Father of Lies. Muslims have faith in Mohammed and Allah.

Jesus often asked “where is your faith” because people tend to put their faith in places it should not go.

I agree with you, we should go with a biblical definition:

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Heb. 11:1.

So Pharoah had faith that his armies could catch the children of Israel. He never dreamed that the sea would be parted and swallow them all.

Hitler had faith that he could rule Europe and eliminate the Jews. He placed his convictions and hope in his army, and his Nazi regime.

Faith belongs to the person who exercises it:

52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight and followed him on the way. Matt.10

This is why Jesus frequently said “your faith” has healed you/saved you.

And I’m not denying that. But the only faith that matters is that in Christ. The rest can only profit me death if He is not the cornerstone.

Yes, I will concede this point. We will both agree that divine faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

This is an interesting question. I think that He reveals Himself to us as much as we are able and disposed to apprehend. How much we can partake of His divine nature is limited by our own human failings.

I completely agree. He gives us faith by measure according to his divine wisdom. Rom 12:3

Yes. From faith to faith.

14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor. 2

In regards to the quoted verse I would agree. That relates very well to ‘‘For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it.’’ Luke 9:24

 

[guanophore]

But if a stance you take is deemed heretical by some you are thereby excommunicated. Are you not? Is not Jesus the only one who decides who to cut from the vine?

No. What any individuals or “some” think of others’ “stance” is irrelevant. The standard is the teaching of the Apostles. Those who abandon it usually excommunicate themselves, like Martin Luther did.

Yes, Jesus is the one who decides. He gave His authority to men, and told them whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven. We call this the Magesterium, or the teaching authority put in place by Christ 2000 years ago.

And who is that? The one with power? All of it? Jesus. So He is whom I fear. But Let me tell you my fear of God. I am So fearful I REJOICE with it. ''37But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'' Whom am I to fear but Christ Our Lord? When His very Love is with me always with the Holy Spirit of Christ.

Yes, but many confuse God’s unrelenting love for us with salvation. He loves us so much, He will watch us walk through the Gates of Hell if we so desire.

But do we not have his Flesh and Blood if we have his Spirit?

Clearly there are those who have been imperfectly united with His One Body, such that they do experience the work of the HS in their lives and ecclesial communities, and yet, they reject Him present in the Eucharist.

How is this scriptural? Here is what actually occurs upon death. ‘‘51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.’’ 1 Cor 15:52

No, Paul is talking about the second coming. He is saying that we shall not all sleep (die) in the flesh before the parousia. Until that time, when we die, our bodies are separated from our souls until the day of judgement. On that day, all will be raised and be judged.

So here’s a question… if I receive of the Eucharist once and then never again, what happens? Does His Spirit suddenly cease testifying to Our Spirit? The thing that’s actually going to raise us from the dead?

It can. Partaking of the Eucharist serves to keep us clinging to the vine. Think of it this way. If salvation is a river, we enter into it through baptism. We can remain in that river and we will be delivered to our heavenly inheritance. We can also choose to get out and walk away. Some depart the river and return while there is yet time. Others never return, and thus, are not united with their heavenly inheritance.

No he is saying His Spirit is the thing that will come and testify of Him and the Life you have in Christ. And that is how you will have life. If His Words can give spirit and life and His Flesh and Blood can give life then they must be one and inseparable.

While you have arrived at an erroneous conclusion based upon a false premise, I do agree that all are from the same Source. Jesus can speak life into someone as well as give His Spirit and Life through the Eucharist. But clearly people have some without the other, so they are not inseparable.

So unless I always have a Eucharist handy in case of severe sudden death then how will life be in me? By His Spirit which tells us. "NEVER WILL I LEAVE YOU, NEVER WILL I FORSAKE YOU’’ Heb 13:5

The nature of sin has not changed. Sin continues to separate us from God. When we are in right relationship with God (a state of grace) we can avoid sin, and bear much fruit. If we sin, we become separated from His Spirit, and the Truth (Christ) is not in us.

If Both can Give Life then they must be one and the same.

No.

I'm not saying you don't eat His Flesh and Blood. I'm saying, how can you say I'm not if I have His Spirit?

Well, no one could possibly tell that over an internet forum, of course. Jesus taught that the valid Eucharist is that which is in unity with the successors of the Apostles.

 

[God_I_Love]

No. What any individuals or “some” think of others’ “stance” is irrelevant. The standard is the teaching of the Apostles. Those who abandon it usually excommunicate themselves, like Martin Luther did.

Well who determines how to interpret the teching of the apostles? And if my interpretation differs than that which is determined by a council am I not excommunicated by my ‘‘pernicious’’ holding of my belief?

Yes, Jesus is the one who decides. He gave His authority to men, and told them whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven. We call this the Magesterium, or the teaching authority put in place by Christ 2000 years ago.

He gave that to Peter. Can the Magisterium fall into error? What about the Pope? And who is to determine if it is in error? Or not in error? While Christ does say ‘’"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.’’ John 16:3 That seems to me to show a personal guidance which one receives when the Spirit dwells within them. So once again we are back to the only authority that can determine if something is true or not, is not a man or men, but rather the Holy Spirit that testifies to us PERSONALLY. Which is key as we are supposed to have access to the Father through Christ by His Spirit which implies a relationship.

Yes, but many confuse God’s unrelenting love for us with salvation. He loves us so much, He will watch us walk through the Gates of Hell if we so desire.

His Love is salvation. That is what abides in us. ‘’…Abide in my love. 10If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.’’ John 15:9-10 His Love is the Testament to our Spirit. It is the Joy and Peace of the Holy Spirit. Now to say that God’s all knowing eyes can not orchestrate salvation for you by His Love, despite your own failings, seems against the idea of "any created thing’’ being unable to separate us from this love. We are created things and if no created thing can sever us from that that also includes us. Now that does not mean he takes away choice. But he uses our choices, even our bad ones, to bring about a better outcome. While we may descend into hell it only refines us so that when He pulls us out we are more purified and sanctified.

Clearly there are those who have been imperfectly united with His One Body, such that they do experience the work of the HS in their lives and ecclesial communities, and yet, they reject Him present in the Eucharist.

So does that make them anathema by their rejection of the doctrine of the Eucharist?

No, Paul is talking about the second coming. He is saying that we shall not all sleep (die) in the flesh before the parousia. Until that time, when we die, our bodies are separated from our souls until the day of judgement. On that day, all will be raised and be judged.

Well in Ecc 9:5 it says that ‘‘the dead know nothing’’. implying death is just that. Non existence until life enters in again. So the Catholic idea of a particular judgment before the final judgment seems extraneous to me. Will God not give us our due reward on the Last day? So is it such a stretch to assume that at death we die and the next moment we awake at the resurrection?

It can. Partaking of the Eucharist serves to keep us clinging to the vine. Think of it this way. If salvation is a river, we enter into it through baptism. We can remain in that river and we will be delivered to our heavenly inheritance. We can also choose to get out and walk away. Some depart the river and return while there is yet time. Others never return, and thus, are not united with their heavenly inheritance.

But who would walk away after experiencing the Love and Peace and Joy of the Holy Spirit? To me it seems impossible for those who have tasted the heavenly fruit to walk away entirely. Now Paul and Peter both talk about this but they never actually address whether it is truly possible to ‘‘turn away’’ (sin) from the Holy Spirit after having gained it. The just say, if you do, you can not be brought back to repentance. Which I would agree.

While you have arrived at an erroneous conclusion based upon a false premise, I do agree that all are from the same Source. Jesus can speak life into someone as well as give His Spirit and Life through the Eucharist. But clearly people have some without the other, so they are not inseparable.

So Christ’s Spirit is Separate from His Flesh and Blood unless it is received in the Eucharist? So there are three ways to life then through Christ then. I can either Eat His Flesh and Blood, Have His Spirit (which is what will give life to my mortal bones upon the resurrection), or have his words abide in me. Now the only way to corroborate Christ saying that ‘‘unless we eat of His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us’’ is to assume either 1) His words and Spirit do not give life (apart from His Flesh and Blood) or 2) that these three life giving elements are one and the same. Now I am open to alternate ideas on this but as of now the second option seems the most logical.

 

[God_I_Love]

The nature of sin has not changed. Sin continues to separate us from God. When we are in right relationship with God (a state of grace) we can avoid sin, and bear much fruit. If we sin, we become separated from His Spirit, and the Truth (Christ) is not in us.

But your understanding of the nature of sin is wrong. Tell me, what can be outside of God? Nothing. So defining the nature of sin as that which separates us from God is not a fully developed understanding of it. That is why sin is a ‘‘turning away’’ from God. Look at Jeremiah 32:40 (this is a KJV translation btw) ‘‘And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart (this is also translated as turn away) from me.’’ So while sin, from our side of the equation, seems to separate us from God, it is more of a blinding ourselves to Him. Imagine being surrounded by water and closing your eyes and saying ‘‘I’m not in water’’… Same concept.

No.

Addressed above

Well, no one could possibly tell that over an internet forum, of course. Jesus taught that the valid Eucharist is that which is in unity with the successors of the Apostles.

/QUOTE

 

[guanophore]

Well who determines how to interpret the teching of the apostles?

This is a good question, and one that has been posed since the beginning of the Church. The Apostles handed the One Faith to the Bishops, and they to their successors until the present day. We call this the Apostolic succession, and it is how God has chosen to preserve His Word in the Church.

And if my interpretation differs than that which is determined by a council am I not excommunicated by my ''pernicious'' holding of my belief?

That depends. If you are Catholic (baptized and confirmed) and your rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ is indeed pernicious, then you may excommunicate yourself.

If you were never Catholic one would have to assume that you had never been taught the Apostolic faith, but received a truncated version of it derived from the Reformation. God does not hold people accountable who are ignorant.

He gave that to Peter. Can the Magisterium fall into error? What about the Pope?

Any individual can fall into error. The gift of infallibility was given to the Church, to prevent the Church from teaching error, and thus, opening the gates of hell to the faithful.

And who is to determine if it is in error? Or not in error? While Christ does say ‘’"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.’’ John 16:3 That seems to me to show a personal guidance which one receives when the Spirit dwells within them.

This promise was made to the Church. Individuals can benefit from it to the extent they remain in unity with the Church founded by Christ.

So once again we are back to the only authority that can determine if something is true or not, is not a man or men, but rather the Holy Spirit that testifies to us PERSONALLY. Which is key as we are supposed to have access to the Father through Christ by His Spirit which implies a relationship.

If this were true, there would not be so many divisions in the Church. The HS does not tell one person one thing, and another the opposite.

His Love is salvation. That is what abides in us. ‘’…Abide in my love. 10If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.’’ John 15:9-10 His Love is the Testament to our Spirit. It is the Joy and Peace of the Holy Spirit. Now to say that God’s all knowing eyes can not orchestrate salvation for you by His Love, despite your own failings,

seems against the idea of "any created thing’’ being unable to separate us from this love. We are created things and if no created thing can sever us from that that also includes us. Now that does not mean he takes away choice. But he uses our choices, even our bad ones, to bring about a better outcome. While we may descend into hell it only refines us so that when He pulls us out we are more purified and sanctified.

No, dear one, love is not equivalent to salvation. God loves every being He creates, but not all of us will be saved. Hell was created for those who do not wish to be in the presence of God, an He loves his creation so much that he allows us the free choice to reject Him if we so desire.

So does that make them anathema by their rejection of the doctrine of the Eucharist?

Anathema is a Church discipline for those who have been instructed and sealed in the faith. Yes, If a Catholic willingly and knowingly chooses to reject the teachings of Christ, they will be anathema.

Well in Ecc 9:5 it says that ‘‘the dead know nothing’’. implying death is just that. Non existence until life enters in again.

Fortunately Catholics do not derive doctrines from one verse of Scripture like this, so we can chalk this one up to the Prophet talking about his own experience and perceptions. we know from other places in Scripture that those who have passed from this life know plenty! Those who die in the Lord are “alive forevermore” and can led their prayers to those of us who still sojourn in the vale of tears.

So the Catholic idea of a particular judgment before the final judgment seems extraneous to me.

You perception of it will not change the facts.

27 And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment Heb 9

Jesus made it clear that we will be judged according to our deeds.

Will God not give us our due reward on the Last day?

Yes.

So is it such a stretch to assume that at death we die and the next moment we awake at the resurrection?

Such a view is not consistent with the Scriptures, or the teaching of Jesus.

Besides, shouldnt you pick one heresy and stay with it? Either they are dead and “know nothing” or they are immediately resurrected? Seems like you can’t have it both ways.

 

[guanophore]

So Christ’s Spirit is Separate from His Flesh and Blood unless it is received in the Eucharist?

Jesus is God, so He can manifest Himself however He chooses. He taught us that He is present in the Eucharist…body, blood, soul and divinity.

So there are three ways to life then through Christ then. I can either Eat His Flesh and Blood, Have His Spirit (which is what will give life to my mortal bones upon the resurrection), or have his words abide in me.

I think you are mistaken. I think these are not separated. They are not “three ways” but three descriptions of the one Way.

Now the only way to corroborate Christ saying that ‘‘unless we eat of His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us’’ is to assume either 1) His words and Spirit do not give life (apart from His Flesh and Blood) or 2) that these three life giving elements are one and the same. Now I am open to alternate ideas on this but as of now the second option seems the most logical.

Well you knock yourself out there with your logic, dear sister. The Apostles taught that these are not separated, so those who have received the Apostolic faith do not separate them.

People tend to want to separate them that are looking for reasons to justify being separated from the One Body…

 

[God_I_Love]

This is a good question, and one that has been posed since the beginning of the Church. The Apostles handed the One Faith to the Bishops, and they to their successors until the present day. We call this the Apostolic succession, and it is how God has chosen to preserve His Word in the Church.

How does one know which bishops have the One Faith? What if one is seeped in a heresy and teaches things contrary to the Faith? How does one tell?

That depends. If you are Catholic (baptized and confirmed) and your rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ is indeed pernicious, then you may excommunicate yourself.

And How will I know that authority is appointed by Christ? He gave the keys to Peter sure. Who determines the next Peter? A bunch of men getting together and saying ''hey your Peter now ‘’? Or is it possibly that Christ, after Peter died, gave the keys to another of HIS choosing, instead of man’s?

If you were never Catholic one would have to assume that you had never been taught the Apostolic faith, but received a truncated version of it derived from the Reformation. God does not hold people accountable who are ignorant.

Ok so here is a question. I’m born into a reformation church. Get baptized (let’s assume matter and form are valid), then receive the Holy Spirit (confirmation). Now I never after this point receive the Eucharist. Not once in my life. Is ‘‘life’’ in this (assume invincibly ignorant) person?

Any individual can fall into error. The gift of infallibility was given to the Church, to prevent the Church from teaching error, and thus, opening the gates of hell to the faithful.

So was the Church teaching error when 98% or more of bishops were teaching Arianism? And how would I know?
Now why does error occur in those whom have the Holy Spirit (and allow it to persist)? I believe it is similar to thinking of the Truth like this. The truth is T. Now in order to understand T fully however you need a + b + c etc… So what happens is an individual is revealed a, and then b but instead of waiting to be revealed what C is they assume, based on a and b, what C is and then say well this is T. And for most people who understand A and B really well, but not C, it makes alot of sense. Now that is not to say that what they believe is entirely untrue but only in it’s conclusions. And it takes one whom has been shown C and D etc to correct the assumption in doctrine. Like Athanasius.

This promise was made to the Church. Individuals can benefit from it to the extent they remain in unity with the Church founded by Christ.

Were the faithful that were led astray by the Bishops in Arian’s time in unity with the Church?

If this were true, there would not be so many divisions in the Church. The HS does not tell one person one thing, and another the opposite.

Explained above as I understand it

No, dear one, love is not equivalent to salvation. God loves every being He creates, but not all of us will be saved. Hell was created for those who do not wish to be in the presence of God, an He loves his creation so much that he allows us the free choice to reject Him if we so desire.

What then is salvation?

Anathema is a Church discipline for those who have been instructed and sealed in the faith. Yes, If a Catholic willingly and knowingly chooses to reject the teachings of Christ, they will be anathema.

You make a leap of logic to assume that all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Christ. Otherwise there would be no need for a development of doctrinal understanding within the Church through Prophecy.

Fortunately Catholics do not derive doctrines from one verse of Scripture like this, so we can chalk this one up to the Prophet talking about his own experience and perceptions. we know from other places in Scripture that those who have passed from this life know plenty! Those who die in the Lord are “alive forevermore” and can led their prayers to those of us who still sojourn in the vale of tears.

So you then reject that this is the Spirit of Wisdom (Christ) telling us this through the Solomon?
And we are alive forever more in Christ. Yet as Christ died a physical death before he was raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit then so must we as ‘‘no man is greater than his master’’. But to assume that something happens in between death and the resurrection is NOT scriptural. Unless you can point to verses which indicate and existence in death before Christ’s Spirit brings life once more to our mortal bones.

You perception of it will not change the facts.

27 And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment Heb 9

Jesus made it clear that we will be judged according to our deeds.

No it wont. Truth is truth even if no one knows it. And I do not deny judgment. I deny, unless shown otherwise, that something occurs between when I draw my last breath and the Judgment on the Last Day.

Yes.

Such a view is not consistent with the Scriptures, or the teaching of Jesus.

Besides, shouldnt you pick one heresy and stay with it? Either they are dead and “know nothing” or they are immediately resurrected? Seems like you can’t have it both ways.

If you view God as outside of time then you can understand this. When we are ‘‘dead’’ we are ‘‘dead’’ in time, but alive at the resurrection having just drawn Our last breath. Now that does not mean God doesn’t allow things such as Ghosts to occur whereby they must see the futility of the things they ‘‘haunt’’. I put nothing outside the realm of possibility.

 

[God_I_Love]

Jesus is God, so He can manifest Himself however He chooses. He taught us that He is present in the Eucharist…body, blood, soul and divinity.

You stated below that the three (flesh and blood, spirit, and words) and not separate. So when one has Christ’s Spirit within them do they not at that same time have his Flesh and Blood and His Words?

I think you are mistaken. I think these are not separated. They are not “three ways” but three descriptions of the one Way.

See above

Well you knock yourself out there with your logic, dear sister. The Apostles taught that these are not separated, so those who have received the Apostolic faith do not separate them.

People tend to want to separate them that are looking for reasons to justify being separated from the One Body…

And I do not separate them. But I am saying you do IF you assume that by Christ’s words, or by Christ’s Spirit indwelling within us, that I at that same time do NOT have His Flesh and Blood.

 

[guanophore]

How does one know which bishops have the One Faith? What if one is seeped in a heresy and teaches things contrary to the Faith? How does one tell?

We are all called to study our faith. For Catholics, the Catechism is a sure norm. If anyone is teaching contrary to what is contained in it, then the faithful are obligated to act.

All Bishops are to remain in unity with the successor of Peter in Rome. All Bishops who are not in unity are missing some part of the One Faith.

And How will I know that authority is appointed by Christ? He gave the keys to Peter sure. Who determines the next Peter? A bunch of men getting together and saying ''hey your Peter now ''? Or is it possibly that Christ, after Peter died, gave the keys to another of HIS choosing, instead of man's?

If you can’t trust what is written in the Holy Scriptures, then there really is no way for you to tell.

Ok so here is a question. I’m born into a reformation church. Get baptized (let’s assume matter and form are valid), then receive the Holy Spirit (confirmation). Now I never after this point receive the Eucharist. Not once in my life. Is ‘‘life’’ in this (assume invincibly ignorant) person?

I would assume that life is in such a person, because that is what the Catechism teaches. There is no way for anyone to know the heart but God, but we can judge by the fruit.

So was the Church teaching error when 98% or more of bishops were teaching Arianism? And how would I know?

God has chosen to guide the Church through the authorities He has appointed. He works through the Magesterium to prevent the Church from teaching error. The Church was saved from heresies through Councils that developed Dogmas (like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the Theotokos) to make the truth clear.

Now why does error occur in those whom have the Holy Spirit (and allow it to persist)?

Because God fashioned us with free will, and we can choose something other than His plan for us.

I believe it is similar to thinking of the Truth like this. The truth is T. Now in order to understand T fully however you need a + b + c etc… So what happens is an individual is revealed a, and then b but instead of waiting to be revealed what C is they assume, based on a and b, what C is and then say well this is T. And for most people who understand A and B really well, but not C, it makes alot of sense. Now that is not to say that what they believe is entirely untrue but only in it’s conclusions. And it takes one whom has been shown C and D etc to correct the assumption in doctrine. Like Athanasius.

Yes, that does make a lot of sense. It also describes human nature well.

Were the faithful that were led astray by the Bishops in Arian's time in unity with the Church?

They believed that they were.

What then is salvation?

Isn’t that outside the scope of the thread?

You make a leap of logic to assume that all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Christ.

There are many levels of authority in the teaching of the CC. The doctrines are handed down by Christ, through the Apostles. The Dogmas are developed with the help of the Holy Spirit with the method used in Acts and the Council of Jerusalem.

Otherwise there would be no need for a development of doctrinal understanding within the Church through Prophecy.

I don’t understand this statement. What develops is our understanding of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

So you then reject that this is the Spirit of Wisdom (Christ) telling us this through the Solomon?

Not at all, I just need to understand it in context, and along with all the rest that Scripture reveals about the afterlife. In the context, the author is saying that the dead cannot contribute anymore to earthly pursuits, which is quite true. however, in Revelation we see the saints alive and well under the altar, worshipping God and praying for justice.

We also have to reconcile the Appearance of Samuel to Saul, and the appearance of Moses and Elijah to Christ. In each of these instances, those who have passed from this life “know” plenty.

 

[guanophore]

But to assume that something happens in between death and the resurrection is NOT scriptural. Unless you can point to verses which indicate and existence in death before Christ’s Spirit brings life once more to our mortal bones.

Scripture is clear that on the day of judgment, each soul will be united again to it’s mortal body. This is what Paul means when he speaks of those who are still alive at the Parousia. The living will be transformed in an instant, their mortal bodies taking on immortality.

What do you think happened to the people who were raised after the resurrection of Christ?

No it wont. Truth is truth even if no one knows it. And I do not deny judgment. I deny, unless shown otherwise, that something occurs between when I draw my last breath and the Judgment on the Last Day.

Oh, so you think your soul is sleeping?

If you view God as outside of time then you can understand this. When we are ‘‘dead’’ we are ‘‘dead’’ in time, but alive at the resurrection having just drawn Our last breath. Now that does not mean God doesn’t allow things such as Ghosts to occur whereby they must see the futility of the things they ‘‘haunt’’. I put nothing outside the realm of possibility.

How is it that Samuel knew what was going on here on earth, and what was about to happen the next day?

How is it that Moses and Elijah could have a little chat with the Lord about his upcoming departure?

How is it the souls in heaven could cry for justice? Are they all 'sleepwalking"?

 

[guanophore]

But your understanding of the nature of sin is wrong.

According to whose standard? There are many people today who do not believe what the Apostles taught about sin and hell. Some people are so naive as to think that God will not “send anyone to hell” because “God is love”. Sin is real, Hell is real. Sin separates us from God.

Tell me, what can be outside of God? Nothing.

God has ordained that holiness shall be separated from evil. This is why nothing unclean can enter heaven, and why nothing in hell can leave there.

So defining the nature of sin as that which separates us from God is not a fully developed understanding of it.

Actually, I offered no definition of sin, I only stated one of the effects of sin, that it separates us from God. I think defining the nature of sin will need it’s own thread.

That is why sin is a ‘‘turning away’’ from God. Look at Jeremiah 32:40 (this is a KJV translation btw) ‘‘And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart (this is also translated as turn away) from me.’’ So while sin, from our side of the equation, seems to separate us from God, it is more of a blinding ourselves to Him. Imagine being surrounded by water and closing your eyes and saying ‘‘I’m not in water’’… Same concept.

This passage is addressed to those who are in a covenantal relationship with God. He had already revealed Himself to the Jews in Word and deed.

Sin separates people from God. People who are in sin cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 6

So you don’t think that “death” here really means separation from eternal life with Christ?

 

[God_I_Love]

We are all called to study our faith. For Catholics, the Catechism is a sure norm. If anyone is teaching contrary to what is contained in it, then the faithful are obligated to act.

Why does the Catechism get revised then? And when? And whom am I trusting to proof read these revisions? And what assurance do I have the proof reader is given the gift of prophecy?

All Bishops are to remain in unity with the successor of Peter in Rome. All Bishops who are not in unity are missing some part of the One Faith.

Where is the scriptural process laid down by either Our Lord or Peter (or someone else with gift of prophecy like Paul, whom Peter approved) for choosing the successor of Peter?

If you can’t trust what is written in the Holy Scriptures, then there really is no way for you to tell.

So your saying James is wrong in 1:5? "5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.’’

I would assume that life is in such a person, because that is what the Catechism teaches. There is no way for anyone to know the heart but God, but we can judge by the fruit.

But how can life be in them if they did not partake of the Eucharist? Because the Catholic position says (as I understand it) the only way to receive Christ’s Flesh and Blood is in the Eucharist?

God has chosen to guide the Church through the authorities He has appointed. He works through the Magesterium to prevent the Church from teaching error. The Church was saved from heresies through Councils that developed Dogmas (like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the Theotokos) to make the truth clear.

I agree. Councils can help define a doctrine by making the teaching more clear on a debated matter. But IF a great division still exists within the Church after a Council it means the Church did not fully explain the doctrine. It needs work so it can be accepted by both sides. Look at the joint agreement on justification. A restatement of position (IE a better teaching) brought two factions closer together on agreement on the issue. So to take the stance (as both sides to) of having a fullness of teaching authority on that matter seems absurd to me.

Let’s take a look at where teaching on the Trinity doctrine could be improved. While three persons in one God is close, it is Rather one God in three capacities. The Father is the Spirit in Christ, whom together are the Spirit in us. The Father’s capacity is the Alpha and the Omega, the fullness of all things. The Son’s is the capacity to reveal the Father, through the Flesh, to all Flesh. The Holy Spirit is the method by which we are brought to know the Father, sent by Christ. Proceeding from the Father but through Christ. It is Through the Son that The Father works and It is through the Spirit that the Son works.

Because God fashioned us with free will, and we can choose something other than His plan for us.

So God is not all knowing, or all wise enough to structure a universe where all things freely chose Him? Is this beyond His capacity?

Yes, that does make a lot of sense. It also describes human nature well.

They believed that they were.

Isn’t that outside the scope of the thread?

So as long as someone truly believes what they hold to be true then that is what keeps them in unity with Christ? If so I think that goes along with ‘‘But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth.’’ John 4:23

There are many levels of authority in the teaching of the CC. The doctrines are handed down by Christ, through the Apostles. The Dogmas are developed with the help of the Holy Spirit with the method used in Acts and the Council of Jerusalem.

I agree partially with you on this. All doctrine comes from Christ. The Apostles interpreted and spread the Gospel (the doctrine). The Church through councils defines issues that arise doctrinally by attempting to make understanding clearer to the Church. So that teaching can be developed to help any whom might misunderstand again. Like the Trinity (though some factions do not even accept that). But a full council requires all the Bishops. And whom is a Bishop? What makes a Bishop? Whom is included?

I don’t understand this statement. What develops is our understanding of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

Understanding should only deepen. And as such we need prophecy to help our deepening understanding (Through the Church)

Not at all, I just need to understand it in context, and along with all the rest that Scripture reveals about the afterlife. In the context, the author is saying that the dead cannot contribute anymore to earthly pursuits, which is quite true. however, in Revelation we see the saints alive and well under the altar, worshipping God and praying for justice.

We also have to reconcile the Appearance of Samuel to Saul, and the appearance of Moses and Elijah to Christ. In each of these instances, those who have passed from this life “know” plenty.

The saints are Alive in Christ at the end and it is to Christ whom they plead with (metaphorically because the events would already be accomplished). It is God showing that He is the one whom will exact Justice for those of His saints whom suffered because of the choices of others. They plead though it is already accomplished. As for appearances in the old Testament the same could be applied. The Ghosts that appeared at the death of Christ for example could have been them appearing to convince the Jews of what they had done to the One whom they were in.

 

[God_I_Love]

Scripture is clear that on the day of judgment, each soul will be united again to it’s mortal body. This is what Paul means when he speaks of those who are still alive at the Parousia. The living will be transformed in an instant, their mortal bodies taking on immortality.

What do you think happened to the people who were raised after the resurrection of Christ?

I agree with you that the Spirit unites with the body on the day of judgment. And I agree with Paul on that ‘‘twinkling of an eye’’ transformation. And I sorta explained above my thoughts on that question in my last response.

Oh, so you think your soul is sleeping?

No. But is it not within the realm of sanity to assume that God can make time irrelevant? One moment you ‘‘die’’ the next you awake?

How is it that Samuel knew what was going on here on earth, and what was about to happen the next day?

How is it that Moses and Elijah could have a little chat with the Lord about his upcoming departure?

Because they are in and with the Omega (The End). They knew all the Omega wanted them too at that moment. But they were still individually who they were. I think that makes the most sense philosophically as well.

How is it the souls in heaven could cry for justice? Are they all 'sleepwalking"?

Are they not able to cry for justice in the past life they lived? And does not the all Just Lord deliver to each and ever cry? By showing them His Justice through the Final Judgment when all things become known and exposed?