K
kaycee
Guest
1Co 1:27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
- Status
S
Sherlock
Guest
“Yes, certainly they did not understand the metaphor!”
Because it wasn’t just a metaphor. As I mentioned earlier, the metaphorical use at the time of eating someone’s flesh and blood meant to defame and persecute someone. Jesus would hardly say that those desire eternal life should defame and persecute him.
“The saying was meant to be hard because Jesus knew their hearts!”
Of course Jesus knew their hearts. But the saying, if taken only metaphorically as you intend it, is not much different than other things Jesus says in regards to the necessity of believing him, and isn’t hard to accept—they were followers, after all.
" Jesus is purposley separating the “goats from the sheep”!"
Yes, he certainly is.
"Jesus did it before! John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.“The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” This metaphor was not revealed until after the Lord rose from the dead. The reaction to this was also anger and unbelief!”
Yes, obviously it would anger those who thought that he meant destroying the temple building. Anger would be a predicatble response, given their understanding. But if the “Bread of Life” discourse was meant only as you suggest, there’s not much in there to be offended about, let alone cause about 6000 followers to leave.
As for your quotes: first off, I said the “Church”, not individuals. Tertullian, by the way, is not usually thought of as a Church Father because he later fell into heresy. The other quotes do not speak against transubstantiation—the Eucharist is a sign; a figure; but it IS what it signifies and figures. And what philosophers call “accidents” remain, which is why " they are visible and tangible as they were before". None of your quotes support your position, as they are supported by Catholic teaching. Perhaps you simply don’t understand the Catholic doctrine very well.
“Yes, another Jewish tradition Jesus would not approve of, certainly not scriptural. The four cups being invented by talmudic rabbis. My Jewish wife informs me.”
Not true, as I have heard from scholars. Indeed, somewhere (sorry, I can’t recall the exact quote, and my Bible is upstairs and I’m too lazy to get it now), in relating the Last Supper, it states, “after the cup of blessing, they went out”. The “cup of blessing” is one of the four cups. Your wife is incorrect.
Because it wasn’t just a metaphor. As I mentioned earlier, the metaphorical use at the time of eating someone’s flesh and blood meant to defame and persecute someone. Jesus would hardly say that those desire eternal life should defame and persecute him.
“The saying was meant to be hard because Jesus knew their hearts!”
Of course Jesus knew their hearts. But the saying, if taken only metaphorically as you intend it, is not much different than other things Jesus says in regards to the necessity of believing him, and isn’t hard to accept—they were followers, after all.
" Jesus is purposley separating the “goats from the sheep”!"
Yes, he certainly is.
"Jesus did it before! John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.“The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” This metaphor was not revealed until after the Lord rose from the dead. The reaction to this was also anger and unbelief!”
Yes, obviously it would anger those who thought that he meant destroying the temple building. Anger would be a predicatble response, given their understanding. But if the “Bread of Life” discourse was meant only as you suggest, there’s not much in there to be offended about, let alone cause about 6000 followers to leave.
As for your quotes: first off, I said the “Church”, not individuals. Tertullian, by the way, is not usually thought of as a Church Father because he later fell into heresy. The other quotes do not speak against transubstantiation—the Eucharist is a sign; a figure; but it IS what it signifies and figures. And what philosophers call “accidents” remain, which is why " they are visible and tangible as they were before". None of your quotes support your position, as they are supported by Catholic teaching. Perhaps you simply don’t understand the Catholic doctrine very well.
“Yes, another Jewish tradition Jesus would not approve of, certainly not scriptural. The four cups being invented by talmudic rabbis. My Jewish wife informs me.”
Not true, as I have heard from scholars. Indeed, somewhere (sorry, I can’t recall the exact quote, and my Bible is upstairs and I’m too lazy to get it now), in relating the Last Supper, it states, “after the cup of blessing, they went out”. The “cup of blessing” is one of the four cups. Your wife is incorrect.
K
kaycee
Guest
Yes, certainly they did not understand the metaphor! They did take it literally. It was meant to offend! Jesus knew they were not REAL followers,
John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.”
Jesus is purposley separating the “goats from the sheep”!
"Jesus did it before! John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
This was meant to offend as well, It was understood as literal at the time as well!
Matt26:28-29 “**
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine ** from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Is this really His blood, Jesus calls it fruit of the vine.
You will not find the 4 cups of wine connected to passover in scripture!
W
WBB
Guest
I am well aware of what St. Paul was talking about. But it is admonishing those of us today to be well aware of what we are doing, and that is participating in the Body and Blood of Christ, not bread and wine. If you partake of the Lord’s sacrifice in a figurative sense, then you are not really partaking in it, you are figuratively partaking in it. We believe that we are partaking of it in reality.
His writings, if I am not mistaken have an *imprimatur *and nihil obstat which would mean that they are free from doctrinal error.
kayee:
As I said, Jesus drank his blood *sacramentally *at the last supper. The key is *sacramentally. *By your mentioning this passage of scripture, you only serve to reinforce that you do not understand Catholic sacramental theology. We do not consider the Blood of Christ the same as blood poured from a slain animal.Ac 21:25 - “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols **and from blood **and from what is strangled and from fornication.”
And in John 6, Jesus commands us to eat his body and drink his blood. Are you going to refute what Jesus expressly commands us to do?
Let’s see…did Jesus drink his own blood? Will Jesus be drinking his own blood in heaven? Will the sacrifice of the Mass be continued in heaven? Rhetorical, maybe, but they certainly show a misunderstanding of Catholic (and Orthodox for that matter) understanding of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and its relationship to the Holy Eucharist. There was no accusation, just an observation based on what I read.
W
WBB
Guest
kaycee said:
Interesting. This verse certainly could be used in the same manner against people who reject the Eucharistic teaching of the Church. It certainly seems foolish to Protestants that we eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood.
S
Sherlock
Guest
You won’t fimd the word “Trinity” in Scripture, nor a condemnation of polygamy. Prove to me, using Scripture, that something must be in Scripture.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I am so tired of the Protestants rejection of certain Catholic teachings by saying that it is a metaphor or parable or symbol while at the same time they claim to be “Biblical” or “only relying on the scripture”.
John 6:53-58 says "Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
The word “Amen” means in this context “this is the Truth”. Imagine someone saying to you: “This is the Truth, this is REALLY the Truth, I say to you. . .” It sounds to me like Jesus is saying “Listen up buster. I’m not kidding here and you better be paying attention or else!!!”
Would you walk away and say, “it was just a metaphor, he didn’t mean it”? Of course not if you found him to be a person whose words you valued. But Jesus knew that some people wouldn’t truly believe what he said as he continued by saying in John 6:60-70 (take special note of verse 66 which I’ve bolded):
"Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
I am greatly troubled by all the people who ignore or water down Jesus’ direct words when he is not speaking in parables (i.e. the mustard seed) but consider the Sermon on the Mount or the Bread of Life Discourse as something to be metaphorized or is just symbolic. Note in the Gospel the times He said “Amen, Amen, I say to you…” and look at your beliefs in the light that He wasn’t talking symbolicly. It will scare the heck out of most Christians. Keep in mind John 12:47-50:
“And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.”
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
A
Achatius
Guest
Why be anything but a Christian? Why do we need particular denomination? It doesn’t help at all, and from what I can see there not many clear differences between churches. My church - St. Peter’s church of England, is not much different to some Catholic churches I have seen. Does anyone see a reason for particular denomination?
Also, if you ask the question
Also, if you ask the question
I ask why be Catholic?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Because She has the fullness of Truth as the Mystical Body of Christ, the One True Church…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic! That’s why [in a nutshell.]
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
The reason is simple. Mathew 16:13-20
"When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
After telling us the Peter is the rock upon which Jesus will build his rock and that Peter (and his successors) has the keys to heaven (in this sentence he is not talking about being Judge and Jury but the knowledge and power to teach the faithful), Jesus also then admonished us to be aware of false prophets in Mathew 7:15-27:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Because I want to be part of the real New Testament church and believe the same things that they did, not be part of churches that tell me they are New Testament when a simple check of the writings of the ECF shows that they don’t believe the same things.
I don’t wanna be part of some noob denom. I wanna be part of Christ’s church and obedient to Him.
J
johnpaullover
Guest
Then you are not baptist. Baptists take the bible literally, or are supposed to.
Now YOU’RE the one who’s perverting scripture. At the end of this passage, Jesus didn’t say that he was speaking figuratively. And even if he was, why?
S
Sherlock
Guest
Well, I’ve already given you my responses to your views on this in an earlier post, but at this point I find myself wondering what the point is in any of my discussions with you: after all, it’s really a matter of authority, isn’t it? What authority do YOU have? Scripture tells me that Scripture is NOT a matter of private interpretation, and man oh man I can see why this is wisdom.
Look, I’m sure you’re a nice person, and you have nice views about Jesus. But there simply is no reason on earth that would compel me to believe your private interpretion instead of the Church. Sorry, but you didn’t address my responses to your earlier claims of early Christian writers and the Eucharist. I do suspect, when you quote early Christian writers, that you have no idea that they are actually teaching (of course) Catholic doctrine. The fact that you think they do otherwise leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you don’t really know about the doctrine you are taking to task. Tell ya what: go and study Aquinas and other Church Doctors. Perhaps this might clear up some of your confusion, and if nothing else might lead you to understand just why it is (you are a textbook case), that we are admonished to listen to the Church and not the latest fashions of the day.
God bless.
Look, I’m sure you’re a nice person, and you have nice views about Jesus. But there simply is no reason on earth that would compel me to believe your private interpretion instead of the Church. Sorry, but you didn’t address my responses to your earlier claims of early Christian writers and the Eucharist. I do suspect, when you quote early Christian writers, that you have no idea that they are actually teaching (of course) Catholic doctrine. The fact that you think they do otherwise leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you don’t really know about the doctrine you are taking to task. Tell ya what: go and study Aquinas and other Church Doctors. Perhaps this might clear up some of your confusion, and if nothing else might lead you to understand just why it is (you are a textbook case), that we are admonished to listen to the Church and not the latest fashions of the day.
God bless.
L
Libero
Guest
I never thought that Baptists were like that, In England they are like the happy clappers, with lots of music in church, plenty os stage plays of bible stories and a large involvement of the lay community. You also would not be able to tell if you saw the minister.
However I read a book by John Grisham and I got the impression that things were much the other way around in America. I also seemed to think that the Baptist and Methodist church dominated South America, not the continent, but the south of USA, with a very low catholic presence. Is this right or merely a misconception?
K
kellyb32
Guest
I can second this opinion. Raised in the Catholic Church, then leaving for the fundamentalist camp (where my husband was raised) for “something more”, I noticed a very strong emphasis on the worship, no matter what church we attended. The reasoning was that it was through worship that we are able to come closer to God. I remember one worship leader wrote a song called “Throne Room” or something along those lines. It talked about coming into the throne room of God in order to worship more fully and touch the presence of God through worship.
This was on sunday mornings. Wednesday evenings were a little more conservative (not by much though), more emphasis was on the bible study on wednesdays, not so much preaching but teaching.
I noticed subtle differences in church teachings on the same topics and wondered why that was. No one could answer, especially my in-laws as to why they believed what they believed. “The bible says it, that’s why” was the only consistant answer I got.
So I began the journey into finding out about Christian doctrines, looking into the history of the Church, etc. and wound up along with my husband and children in the RCC. We converted April 10th, 2004.
What did I learn from being protestant? The bible, a lot of it.
Beacuse of this I am able to raise my children appreciating the Word of God along with the Church and the Sacraments. I wasn’t given that growing up because my parents didn’t know the bible that much either.
I love being a Catholic again after my stint in the fundamentalist camp. I have a greater appreciation and better understanding of the RCC as a result.
I realized I didn’t need upbeat music to get me stirred up to worship God. I can worship Him with more spirit and truth in the quiet when I seek Him. I don’t need clanging cymbals and pounding drums to usher in His presence. He is here, right now.
The “emotional high” I would get from going to church on sundays and wednesdays would wear off usually within a day, that’s why we had to go 2x a week to get recharged. By being Catholic again, I have become stable and don’t depend on how I feel in order to maintain a consistant walk with Christ.
But that’s just me
God bless!
S
Subrosa
Guest
From a cradle Catholic, some thoughts…
It is sooo true that most Catholics (as well as people in other religions) are ill-informed about thier religion. It has been a topic of discussion I’ve had with people in my own church, along with “Why doesn’t the Church do something about it?” The answer is, inevitably, that people are responsable for themselves when it comes to religious education.
With this in mind, I’ve been educating myself for a little over a year, now. The history of the Church is quite amazing and interesting.
So, what is keeping me Catholic?
Primarily participating in the Eucharist, and also participating in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Jesus left His ministries in the hands of men in order to give us a means to spiritually bond with Him. These Sacraments simply do not exist in protestantism. There can be much talk about “how my relationship with Jesus is all I need,” but the truth is there lacks a real means to obtain forgiveness and spiritual bonding with Christ. Whatever hope there is depends on prayer, which lacks any physical reassurance. (Of course, the OSAS crowd have made it a simple answer.) The Sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation were established by Christ Himself in order to accomplish these things.
There was a time when I considered the traditions of the Church old and full of cobwebs. I also watched others and was influenced by thier actions. Now I am an example to them, influencing them (hopefully) to participate more fully.
I have become selfish with Christ and His Sacraments. Other people simply do not effect me negatively anymore.
Subrosa
S
Sherlock
Guest
Beautiful posts—thank you, kellyb and Subrosa.
J
johnpaullover
Guest
Southern Baptists have electric guitars and psychedelic rock in their services.I never thought that Baptists were like that, In England they are like the happy clappers, with lots of music in church, plenty os stage plays of bible stories and a large involvement of the lay community. You also would not be able to tell if you saw the minister.
However I read a book by John Grisham and I got the impression that things were much the other way around in America. I also seemed to think that the Baptist and Methodist church dominated South America, not the continent, but the south of USA, with a very low catholic presence. Is this right or merely a misconception?
But the dictionary definition of “fundimentalist” is someone who takes the Bible literally. Ha ha.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Kelly, you have hit on my primary comment about the weaknesses in our Protestant brothers and sisters religions (not to dismiss theological issues that are important but also, in most cases, these differences pale when compared to what unites us. When the hugging, singing and clapping ends or loses its effect (like drug addicts, over time we need “more” for the same effect), I fear they could be lost when confronted with crisis of faith or disillutionsment. On the flip side, the “protocol” of the being Catholic requires much more balance between worship/praise, catechisis/teaching, prayer (communal/private/contemplative), forgiveness (through our own penance and the forgiveness we give to others), obedience/submission, gratitude (time, talent and treasure), and most importantly love (that which we show God directly and indirectly through our works).I can second this opinion. Raised in the Catholic Church, then leaving for the fundamentalist camp (where my husband was raised) for “something more”, I noticed a very strong emphasis on the worship, no matter what church we attended. The reasoning was that it was through worship that we are able to come closer to God. I remember one worship leader wrote a song called “Throne Room” or something along those lines. It talked about coming into the throne room of God in order to worship more fully and touch the presence of God through worship.
This was on sunday mornings. Wednesday evenings were a little more conservative (not by much though), more emphasis was on the bible study on wednesdays, not so much preaching but teaching.
I noticed subtle differences in church teachings on the same topics and wondered why that was. No one could answer, especially my in-laws as to why they believed what they believed. “The bible says it, that’s why” was the only consistant answer I got.
So I began the journey into finding out about Christian doctrines, looking into the history of the Church, etc. and wound up along with my husband and children in the RCC. We converted April 10th, 2004.
What did I learn from being protestant? The bible, a lot of it.
Beacuse of this I am able to raise my children appreciating the Word of God along with the Church and the Sacraments. I wasn’t given that growing up because my parents didn’t know the bible that much either.
I love being a Catholic again after my stint in the fundamentalist camp. I have a greater appreciation and better understanding of the RCC as a result.
I realized I didn’t need upbeat music to get me stirred up to worship God. I can worship Him with more spirit and truth in the quiet when I seek Him. I don’t need clanging cymbals and pounding drums to usher in His presence. He is here, right now.
The “emotional high” I would get from going to church on sundays and wednesdays would wear off usually within a day, that’s why we had to go 2x a week to get recharged. By being Catholic again, I have become stable and don’t depend on how I feel in order to maintain a consistant walk with Christ.
But that’s just me
God bless!
Using the analogy, so many Protestants seem to reach a fast paced, emotional level of being saved that requires them to maintain that sprint throughout life (and a wreck often render the vehicle “totaled”) while a Catholic begins a plodding journey at baptism that continues until death (and our wrecks are usually just little fender benders that render the vehicle still workable until we can get it repaired as a by-product of the grace that comes from the Sacraments and practicing our faith).
- Status