Why didn't Jesus do the same thing in John 6...

[joe370]

Hey flyonthewall, in order to apply them to our lives shouldn’t we have the correct interpretation? If you are right about the Eucharist, then I am wrong. Am I guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, if in fact you are right?

I am not the final authority of scriptural interpretation. At best I can apply them to my own personal life.
It has always been given to prophets of God to expound upon the scriptures. The Holy Ghost also is the revealer of truth.

So, we have established the fact that neither of us were entrusted with the authority to definitively settle doctrinal disputes!

Who does have the God given authority to interpret sacred scripture or settle doctrinal disputes (like the CC did regarding the Trinity, theotokos) - such as the Eucharist??? Or, is it your belief that God failed to leave the world with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding things like:

This is my body

vs

This is a symbol of my body…

 

[flyonthewall]

You don’t believe that men like Ignatius and Polycarp (leaders that were taught directly by the apostles) - can be trusted when it comes to the truth regarding the Eucharist? Where is the symbolism in the following and what’s the point of the alter if the bread is nothing more than mere bread?

I go to the very source of the words…Jesus Christ. To me, His words are plain, and go hand in hand with the rest of the symbolism throughout the scriptures.

circa 110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3

    I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life**. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ,** who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.

Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 - 4

    Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God:** for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood;** one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7

    From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because **they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,** which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.

Since I have not read more than just these snippets, I really can’t comment on their context or meaning.
I hear what they mean to you. You have stated what their meaning is to the Catholic church, and that is fine. I’m not out to overturn anything.

The question was asked and I responded. I think I have laid out why my beliefs differ from yours on the issue of the literal presence of the body and blood of Christ.
To me, the physical presence is not required because the spiritual representation is there.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey flyonthewall, in order to apply them to our lives shouldn’t we have the correct interpretation? If you are right about the Eucharist, then I am wrong. Am I guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, if in fact you are right?

I would not say that. I would say you were simply misinformed and did the best you could with the understanding you had. That is all that can be requested is to do the best you can with what you have.

So, we have established the fact that neither of us were entrusted with the authority to definitively settle doctrinal disputes!

Who does have the God given authority to interpret sacred scripture or settle doctrinal disputes (like the CC did regarding the Trinity, theotokos) - such as the Eucharist??? Or, is it your belief that God failed to leave the world with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding things like:

This is my body

vs

This is a symbol of my body…

I know this isn’t going to come as a surprise to you, but for me, the current Prophet and Apostles do.
I imagine, that to you, the Catholic church does.
So what we have here is not an opportunity to convert one to the other’s way of thinking, but to understand why the other believes the way they do.

To be honest, I have always thought that your belief was rather gruesome and mystic in nature, however, as a result of the dialogue here, I don’t see it in the same light.
Still don’t agree with it, but see it differently now.

 

[joe370]

Hey fly…

I know this isn’t going to come as a surprise to you, but for me, the current Prophet and Apostles do.

They are no longer here to settle doctrinal disputes, so that does not answer my question. Or are you referring to people other than the 12 apostles and prophets of old, when you say: the current Prophet and Apostles do

I imagine, that to you, the Catholic church does.

Only if the CC is the church founded by God forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth. If I am wrong about this then the CC does not possess the authority, by God, to settle doctrinal disputes, which begs the question: why were they settling doctrinal disputes regarding the trinity, theotokos and other things?

So what we have here is not an opportunity to convert one to the other’s way of thinking, but to understand why the other believes the way they do.

I don’t want to convert you to my way of thinking I just want you to answer my question, which was:

So, we have established the fact that neither of us were entrusted with the authority to definitively settle doctrinal disputes!

Who was entrusted with the authority, by God, to interpret sacred scripture or settle doctrinal disputes. The apostles and prophets are no longer here to interpret scripture and settle doctrinal disputes? Or, is it your belief that God failed to leave the world with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding things like:

This is my body

vs

This is a symbol of my body…

To be honest, I have always thought that your belief was rather gruesome and mystic in nature, however, as a result of the dialogue here, I don’t see it in the same light.
Still don’t agree with it, but see it differently now.

Again, I certainly don’t have any authority to tell you that you are wrong and I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey fly…
They are no longer here to settle doctrinal disputes, so that does not answer my question. Or are you referring to people other than the 12 apostles and prophets of old, when you say: the current Prophet and Apostles doI am referring to the current Prophet and Apostles, alive today.

Only if the CC is the church founded by God forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth. If I am wrong about this then the CC does not possess the authority, by God, to settle doctrinal disputes, which begs the question: why were they settling doctrinal disputes regarding the trinity, theotokos and other things?

And I am not trying to tell you that you are either right or wrong, but simply that I disagree. In attempting to answer your questions I explained why I believe the way I do.
I realize that unless you believe the way I do, you will not accept my reasons as valid. We both have our reasons for believing the way we do, and both of us claim our reasons are fimly founded in the scriptures.

This dialogue certainly has been a learning experience for me. I come away from it with a better understanding of your beliefs and the reasons behind them.

 

[Radical]

Radical or Flyonthewall, can you respond to my previous comment? This is what I had posted and I guess you two may have missed it: The bible states that those who left were disciples, correct? Well, aren’t disciples followers of Christ? And if they are followers of Christ, then hadn’t they been called by the Father? Or am I missing something here?

sorry…I missed your question the first time and then I enjoyed a Canadian Thanksgiving…now it seems that I am about 30 posts behind. If you look at John 6 again, and in particular verses 37,44 & 64 you should have your explanation.

Also, why would Paul state in 1Cor 11:27 " Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (KJV) How does one unworthily eat and drink a metaphor or symbol?

I’ve answered this a number of times before…I’ll provide a link to one of those answers when I have the time to find it.

 

[joe370]

flyonthewall

;7155453]I am referring to the current Prophet and Apostles, alive today.

Please identify these apostles and prophets, alive today, who can settle doctrinal disputes for all of us? That way we can settle the matter once and for all.

Well, that is the big difference between your belief and mine. I believe there was a falling away, and just like in the game of “telephone”, the further away from the original 12, the more the teachings were altered.

That makes sense.

I believe they recognized this and attempted to standardize things. Unfortunately by that time, well, when you build on something that is “off” even just a little. . .

So doctrinal truth remains evasive…or someone still has access to doctrinal truth? Let’s find those folks.

And my answer still remains, the current Prophet and Apostles(alive today).

Come on, you know that doesn’t answer my question. Again, who are these present day apostles and prophets??? Identify them so we can take our differences to them for resolution.

This dialogue certainly has been a learning experience for me. I come away from it with a better understanding of your beliefs and the reasons behind them.

For me too, especially if you answer my question. LOL…

 

[flyonthewall]

Please identify these apostles and prophets, alive today, who can settle doctrinal disputes for all of us? That way we can settle the matter once and for all.
I think you already know what I will say…
The Prophet is Thomas S. Monson. Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchdorf are the other members of the First Presidency, and are Apostles too.

The Quorum of the 12 Apostles consist of:
Boyd K. Packer
L. Tom Perry
Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
M. Russell Ballard
Richard G. Scott
Robert D. Hales
Jeffery R. Holland
David A. Bednar
Quentin L. Cook
D. Todd Christofferson
Niel L. Anderson

Now that I have answered your question, somehow I don’t think that will help in resolving this to your satisfaction.

 

[joe370]

flyonthewall

;7157909]I think you already know what I will say…
The Prophet is Thomas S. Monson. Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchdorf are the other members of the First Presidency, and are Apostles too.

The Quorum of the 12 Apostles consist of:
Boyd K. Packer
L. Tom Perry
Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
M. Russell Ballard
Richard G. Scott
Robert D. Hales
Jeffery R. Holland
David A. Bednar
Quentin L. Cook
D. Todd Christofferson
Niel L. Anderson

So these are the people who can settle the matter regarding doctrinal differences, once and for all, in your opinion? Okay…Thanks for answering my question; most people just ignore that question.

Now that I have answered your question, somehow I don’t think that will help in resolving this to your satisfaction.

No, but at least you answered my question. Most just ignore me when it comes to that question. Ultimately, what you are saying,** I think,** is: there is no one church (founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33) - in the world today, that can resolve doctrinal differences once and for all? We all, depending on the church to which we belong, defer to different authoritative leaders, and quite often these church leaders don’t always see eye to eye, doctrinally speaking, and there is no higher authority to step up and settle the matter for the rest of these isolated autonomous churches, which means, until Jesus returns to set the record straight, doctrinal truth regarding things like, this is my body vs this is a symbol of my body, will remain unresolvable - yes, no, maybe?

 

[flyonthewall]

So these are the people who can settle the matter regarding doctrinal differences, once and for all, in your opinion? Okay…Thanks for answering my question; most people just ignore that question.

No, but at least you answered my question. Most just ignore me when it comes to that question. Ultimately, what you are saying,** I think,** is: there is no one church (founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33) - in the world today, that can resolve doctrinal differences once and for all? We all, depending on the church to which we belong, defer to different authoritative leaders, and quite often these church leaders don’t always see eye to eye, doctrinally speaking, and there is no higher authority to step up and settle the matter for the rest of these isolated autonomous churches, which means, until Jesus returns to set the record straight, doctrinal truth regarding things like, this is my body vs this is a symbol of my body, will remain unresolvable - yes, no, maybe?

In my eyes, the issue is alread resolved, as I am sure it is for you too.

 

[joe370]

Hey fly…

In my eyes, the issue is already resolved, as I am sure it is for you too.

Absolutely. We have opposing beliefs regarding this particular teaching and both of us are pretty sure that we are right, and we both defer to a different authority for resolution. I guess my point was: as far as you are concerned, there is no universal oversight, established by Jesus,in the world today, that can settle the matter for you and I, (for all Christians, regardless of denomination) - once and for all.