The necessity of Water Baptism 2greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
This thread reopens the discussion from here.http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Ci0T
The Necessity of Water Baptism 1
-- Zar-Mod (No@email.com), January 27, 2005
TRANSFERRED OVER HERE Hello Ian I am so tired of all this talking. The posts on this and other threads are incessant.But just a couple thoughts for you.
I think Vatican II realized that the Church is *more* than just an outward society of Baptized people (Bellarmine's concept). Rather, just as our Lord Jesus has two natures, human and Divine, so the Church is a *mystery* much bigger than we are used to dealing with. It is the Body of Christ, the fulness of God, and Sacrament of Salvation, among many other realities.
Could it be--just an idea--
1. On one level, the Church is an earthly society of the Baptized, in which Christ calls us to be incorporated and in which we receive the wellsprings of Life.
2. On another level, the order of Grace, the Church is made up of all who receive the working of God's grace, whether they know the name of Christ consciously or not. (Old Testament saints, for example).
Note, Ian! It is possible to assert *opposite* things of Christ according to His two natures. He is finite and infinite, passible and immortal, omnipresent and circumscribed, omnipotent and weak. According to His humanity, He eats, sleeps, hungers, is weary, dies. According to His Divinity, He was upholding creation even as He was lying in the manger or hanging on the cross.
Do you think the Church, His Body, is any less mysterious and seemingly contradictory?
Perhaps Dominus Iesus is reminding us that the Church is much bigger than we think, according to the order of Grace. Remember, St. Justin Martyr could speak of Socrates as being saved by the Logos, and Shepherd of Hermas reminds us that the Church is ancient, as old as time.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 26, 2005.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2005.
-- Zar (mOVING@UP.com), January 27, 2005.
Hi All,Baptism is the entry point into the New Covenant just as circumcision was the entry point into the Old Covenant. And just as infant boys were circumcized in the Old Covenant, the early church realized that newly born infants were to be baptized into the New Covenant. It is not expressly in the NT, that is true, but it is expressed in early writings.
The most explicit come from Origen (185 -254) when he said in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit." Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.
Origen was close enough to those who learned their faith directly from the Apostles to correctly capture their teaching.
Hope that helps.
David
-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 28, 2005.
Romans 2:28-29 tells...A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
The same is true of baptism. It is an outward sign of the deeper spiritual truth set in your heart....
ooh., and this:
Romans 2:25-27
Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?
The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
What truly counts is in the heart.....baptism is of the heart and Spirit.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.
ok, i'm a bit confused here. if i'm not mistaken, i thought i once read that origen had some theological issues and when a protestant uses something origen said, a catholic will claim that origen wasn't the end all be all of church fathers and is not quotable material. on the other hand, when it suits a catholic need, origen is quoted.i could be wrong, i will investigate this matter, but in the course of investigation, any comments (intelligent and factual - not you sdqa) would be appreciated. i don't want theories and conjectures; i'm open to truth.
this post is not to undermine david's argument, but merely to CLARIFY it. this post is not made in the attempt to start a debate such as, "well, protestants are hypocritical too!" i'll give a cheap example. picture someone trying to prove predestination by quoting scripture, only the scripture that's quoted has nothing to do with predestination, or the scripture that's quoted is from the book of morman, etc. would you agree that the source that's being quoted need be a "viable" source in order to even have an argument, as wrong or right as it may be?
-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 28, 2005.
Hi Rina,Since I'm not Catholic, but I'm quoting Origen to support a Catholic doctrine, where does that leave us? :-)
Actually, I posted that same contradictory statement on the Catholic forum some time last summer if I recall correctly. And it's true. Origen was one of the most intelligent and prolific early church fathers. Unfortunately, he ran afoul of a bishop and was excommunicated cause he ticked the bishop off. He actually didn't depart the faith or anything, but his excommunication leaves some of his material (post ex) as suspect in Catholic eyes.
My point is using this is he so matter of factly addresses this subject as if everyone just accepts it as fact. He's not arguing for it or trying to settle a dispute, he's just stating a fact. So it seems clear to me that by Origen's time, pretty early on, baptizing infants was well-estblished as something the Apostles passed on.
David
-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 28, 2005.
Hi Rina,The fellow who posted the Origin quote is not a Catholic as you suggested in your post. (See his signatory) He was simply using Origin as a point of reference. There are many many other quotes from the very early church fathers concerning infant baptism. Those could be used in order to show that in the very early days this was indeed a practice.
Furthermore, David, the Non-Catholic Christian used Origin to make a very specific point; that being that "infant baptism" replaced the practice of circumcision. The fullness of the time had come; a new baptism was underway. The Old Covenant is dead, and the New Covenant is now in full swing! Circumcision was a command of God as is baptism. The fathers reasoned that if God "required" an infant son to be circumcized and that act was effectual, then as well, infant baptism was also effectual and beneficial to the Christian infant.
Having said all of that, however, Catholic baptism of an infant does not "guaranty" salvation by any means. The sacrament of baptism is a powerful grace, and not one to be taken lightly or only symbolically, or casually. When a parent has their child baptized, "they are standing in the gap" so to speak, acknowleding their intent to raise the child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 28, 2005.
Hi Gail. Nice to see you over here as well :-)David
-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 28, 2005.
Gail, you forget.., the law never saved anyone. Resorting back to it by making baptism like a written law or code--is useless.As the verses I provided above reveal--circumcision meant nothing if your heart wasn't in it. And conversely--if your heart is in it--then won't God accept you as circumcised?? We can use the same idea in an analogy with baptism.
Faith is separate from works., and as the scripture below reveals--if works justified, faith would have no place.
Romans 4:9-25
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed–the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead–since he was about a hundred years old–and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness– for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Wow! Do you hear that?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.
Hmm, this is interesting. It sounds like the Catholics are admitting that baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant.
-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.
Faith,But obedience is better than sacrifice and God told Israel to be circumcised as the entry into the Lord's covenant and God told the Church to be baptized. The obedience and the act are our cooperation with God in entering into the covenant, so God gives special grace as we obey. That grace is the seal of the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus Himself was baptized and received the fullness of the Holy Spirit to empower His ministry, we also receive the Holy Spirit upon baptism. Note that the Word also teaches us to be baptized "for the remission of sins", so we know that baptism cleanses from sin. You can argu with God and what He taught in scripture if you'd like, but that's a rather futile effort, cause in the end He wins :-)
David
-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 29, 2005.
The teaching concerning baptism's parallel with circumcision comes straight from St. Paul himself:Colossians 2:11,12: "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism ..."
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.
Lukeyou are right that they are not the same.
in particular, whilst baptism "replaces" circumcision, it is much more than circumcision. it is a real sacrament with real effects. baptism, in the realest of senses, removes the stain of Original Sin [faith alone does not suffice], and is a sine qua non of salvation.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 29, 2005.
Of all the arguments against the necessity of baptism, the circumcision is one of the best. I see Faith has touched the right track. She needn't waste her time on the whole "faith vs works" argument, that won't hold up. Anyway, I'm not condemning baptism, just pointing that out.
-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.
David,Without first believing and receiving the Holy Spirit--we could not and would not obey.
Baptism is an outward sign of the true condition of our hearts-- though as in circumcision, one could receive the outward sign and not have the right heart--and what good is it. In the same way, anyone can be submerged in a body of water and claim the name of Jesus--but if the faith isn't real, to what good will it do? None. And conversely, someone who has the right faith, but was never emmersed in water--will still find his home with Christ because true baptism is of the heart and Spirit.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
Faith,You wrote, "Without first believing and receiving the Holy Spirit-- we could not and would not obey."
Why do you continue with your "calvinist" theory that "without first believing and receiving the Holy Spirit--we could not and would not obey"??? This is not true... Please tell everyone here Faith how one is not able to first believe in the gospel (after having heard it), then how one is not able to repent of their sins after having heard the gospel and believing it, then how one is not able to confess Jesus as Lord as the Ethiopian Eunuch did in Acts chapter 8 wherein he confess his faith in the gospel of Christ (His death, burial and resurrection) and then how one is not able to be baptized (in water) for the remission of their sins without some external indwelling of the Holy Spirit???
If what you state is true, then you ought to be able to prove this through the New Testament... Since you claim that you are "well versed" in scripture, you should have no problem doing this right Faith???
-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 29, 2005.
Faith wrote, "And conversely, someone who has the right faith, but was never emmersed in water--will still find his home with Christ because true baptism is of the heart and Spirit."This is another lie that Faith promotes and this doctrine is also not taught in God's word... Jesus "plainly stated" in John 3:5 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Unless on is baptized "in water" which is exactly what this verse states, they "cannot" enter the kingdom of God... This is a far cry from the false doctrine that Faith promotes... It all boils down to who you are going to believe, Faith and her doctrine or what Jesus actually stated in the Bible???
-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 29, 2005.
Posting stuff and trying to pass it off as if you wrote it...is that against the rules? Cuz it is against the law, not to mention the 8th Commandment.Just my $0.02.
-- jake (j@k.e), January 29, 2005.
there is a rule against it, i think.......but if not, there should be. maybe.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 29, 2005.
Kevin?This is another lie that Faith promotes and this doctrine is also not taught in God's word... Jesus "plainly stated" in John 3:5 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Notice it says *of* and not in??
It is your assumption that the true understanding must be what you *think* is plainly stated.
But to me--that verse confirms my understanding that baptism is spiritual....
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
Also Kevin--Unless you are of the spirit, you will not live by the spirit. It requires being born again by faith because you believe. This is your baptism...
Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the sinful nature (unbelievers) have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit (believers) have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
This is not Calvinistic theology either--because the Calvinist does not believe that a man can choose to believe the gospel when He hears it unless God first regenerates him. That is not what I believe, because the Bible teaches that we are born-again by faith., not that we have faith because we are born-again.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
In case you missed it on the other thread, Faith, here's a copy of YOUR post.The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.
But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.
John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..
Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.
But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.
Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?
The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.
They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)
Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.
And here's Tony Pirog's Article
IS THE EUCHARIST THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS? by Tony Pirog (no login)
The Roman Catholic Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the Literal meaning of the text supportive of the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
First, we must point out that the LITERAL meaning of the text is obviously not always the CLEAR meaning. The term "literal" is capable of quite a range of definition. If it is pushed to mean absurd literalism, and we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of a text, then obviously the bible is full of complete nonsense. Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10; literally this means Jesus is a door, replete with hinges, knob, and maybe even a lock! And, of course, this would also have to mean that only sheep will be saved . . .
Everyone understands that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the TRULY LITERAL interpretation will take this into consideration.
John seemed to love the different ways Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other Gospel writers, for in John the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways.
Jesus is "the Light of the world" (8:12) the "good shepherd" (10:11), and the "true vine" (15:1).
Jesus is not literally the SUN in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus WHEN THEY ARE TAKEN ACCORDING to the PLAIN INTENTION of the TEXT: AS SYMBOLS.
You Catholics, like these first-century listeners, cannot see past the symbol to the reality beyond. (2 Tim 3:7 "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth")
Then they said to him" Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (vv.33-35)
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to see the real significance of Jesus' words. In response Jesus gets real specific - He himself is this bread. The one who "comes to Me" - a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show) - will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to "thirsting" seems somewhat out of place here, given only food has been mentioned up to this point; but I believe in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not referring to actual physical consumption of food. He is referring to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (Symbol: hunger & thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the LITERAL and OBVIOUS meaning of the text. And since this is the first time that "hunger" and "thirst" are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by our Lord must be carried through the rest of the text.
*********
Oh yeah, you took a couple of paragraphs out --- His article was much much longer -- and you reworded a few things, but it's definitely from his article. Unless, of course, you're saying he stole it from YOU!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.
Kevin, Was out of town at a meeting, hope you are still around.You really don't know what you are talking about do you??? John 6:63 does answer your question just fine and I did not "mindlessly repeat it" as you assert...
Sorry about the "mindlessly repeat" bit, I'd rather not have this degenerate into an ad hominem war, o.k.?
Your quoting of John 6:52-55 and John 6:47-51 does not help you one bit... Please show us where Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper or Eucharist as you call it in any of these passages???
I don't need to, at this point. Staying right here in John is good enough. The first time He talks to the Jews, he uses the word "phagos" meaning "to eat", and when they grumble He comes back using the work "trogos" meaning to gnaw or to chew. There is no doubt He was refering to physically eating here, why else would He deliberately change to a very visceral verb on the subject? That's the point I'm trying to make is that Christ said we must *physically* eat His body, so we can worry about tying it in to the rest of the Bible later. BTW, I don't read Greek personally, and am taking the phagos & trogos on faith, but here's a reputable Catholic group that DOES have people who read Greek who says the same thing. link.
If you look at verse 45 which states, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."
How are they going to "all" be taught by God???
The answer that Jesus gives is in verse 63 which states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
It is the "words" that Jesus spoke that were "spirit" and "life" He also stated in this verse the "flesh profits nothing" so your assumption that Jesus literally meant one must eat His body and drink His blood is not true...
"I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is *****my***** flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” "
"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats ***my*** flesh and drinks *****my***** blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For *****my***** flesh is real food and *****my***** blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats *****my***** flesh and drinks *****my***** blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."
Then in your quote He says:
" “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; *****the***** flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life"
Six times Christ says you must eat MY flesh to live to the Jews. When speaking to the Apostles, he does NOT say "MY flesh counts for nothing", but THE flesh counts for nothing. As I said before, He is speaking to two different groups of people about two different things!
First, to the Jews He is giving a command, just like He instructed people to be baptized. Water itself isn't benefial for salvation, but baptism is at Christ's command. Similarly, eating human flesh isn't beneficial, but eating Christ's glorified body and blood at His command most definitely is.
What about your quote then? He is no longer speaking to a crowd and giving his command, but is speaking to His disciples who should know or understand more, not at this point, but at least later when they see the events of his death and resurrection. Christ here does NOT contradict what He said earlier -- if he said ***MY*** flesh counts for nothing you'd have a good case-- but He didn't. He said ***THE*** flesh counts for nothing. The disciples are offended just like the crowd, being Jews they are not to eat blood and certainly not people! He is telling them to listen to and obey the Word, the Spirit that gives life, and not to worry about what sounds to them like cannibalism. The Word is important, not the eating of flesh. Baptism is important, not the water, Life is important, not the flesh.
BUT, you must be dipped in REAL water to be baptised, and you must REALLY eat Christ's body to attain life. That's just how it is. I know it's hard coming from your background to accept, but think it through, the difference between MY *F*lesh that we are commanded to eat and THE flesh that is unimportant.
Here are some quotes from the church fathers who were quite literally taught by the Apostles. Their beliefs should be important to you as they are much more likely to be practicing what was directly taught to them by Christ through the apostles than someething that was invented 2000 years later. link They show that the early Christians believed that we ARE to eat the Body of Christ! You won't find anyone saying that is NOT the case until the 1700's! By that alone you should be able to tell which is true and which isn't.
We partake of the Lord's supper in order to remember and proclaim Jesus death until He returns
We can discuss this later, but should really work through our current topic first.
There is only one truth, and I can assure you that the "pope" doesn't have it...
LOL, for me, this is the grandest irony. I can take 10 sola scriptura Christians, put them in a room, and hear 10 different versions of the Truth, each of them insisting THEY are the correct one, and the others mistaken. The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ is wrong! No thanks!
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
I'd love to know how some guy named Tony could be credited for the article I posted since it isn't written by him?????????
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Well, Faith, here is your text . . . The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.
But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.
John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..
Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.
But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.
Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?
The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.
They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)
Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.
And here is Tony Pirog's article.
IS THE EUCHARIST THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS? by Tony Pirog (no login)
The Roman Catholic Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the Literal meaning of the text supportive of the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
First, we must point out that the LITERAL meaning of the text is obviously not always the CLEAR meaning. The term "literal" is capable of quite a range of definition. If it is pushed to mean absurd literalism, and we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of a text, then obviously the bible is full of complete nonsense. Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10; literally this means Jesus is a door, replete with hinges, knob, and maybe even a lock! And, of course, this would also have to mean that only sheep will be saved . . .
Everyone understands that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the TRULY LITERAL interpretation will take this into consideration.
John seemed to love the different ways Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other Gospel writers, for in John the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways.
Jesus is "the Light of the world" (8:12) the "good shepherd" (10:11), and the "true vine" (15:1).
Jesus is not literally the SUN in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus WHEN THEY ARE TAKEN ACCORDING to the PLAIN INTENTION of the TEXT: AS SYMBOLS.
You Catholics, like these first-century listeners, cannot see past the symbol to the reality beyond. (2 Tim 3:7 "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth")
Then they said to him" Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (vv.33-35)
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to see the real significance of Jesus' words. In response Jesus gets real specific - He himself is this bread. The one who "comes to Me" - a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show) - will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to "thirsting" seems somewhat out of place here, given only food has been mentioned up to this point; but I believe in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not referring to actual physical consumption of food. He is referring to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (Symbol: hunger & thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the LITERAL and OBVIOUS meaning of the text. And since this is the first time that "hunger" and "thirst" are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by our Lord must be carried through the rest of the text.
***********
Are you saying he stole it from you, or you stole it from him . . . or maybe you BOTH stole it from somone else! Or maybe you're such a pathological thief you really don't remember who you stole it from.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2005.
I know exactly what book I typed it from and who the author is. I even posted that information long ago in some other thread--only to have to deal with the author bashing that always ensues...Gail's Tony is the author. Has he claimed for himself the work of James White? Why is there no link to this guy? Has Gail's frantic search for this article on her google--(so that she could derail the focus from the content, and change the focus onto me) caused her not to note that Tony wasn't possibly claiming to be the author? Sloppy of her in any event........
It bothers her how much sense this article makes...and her intent is to author bash or bash me. I said many times that I would not offer my sources up anymore because I would not subject them to her and rod's abuse--and it always derails the real topic.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
No, Faith, what bothers me is that you are a thief, and common petty thief!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.
Give us a link Gail., prove that James White's work is really that of some guy named Tony. Whose really the thief since you don't even know my name? Am I receiving money or personal credit or gain for having used his work anonymously to further a conversation and make a point?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
HOW Funny! You truly are trying to turn this around on ME! You are a hoot-a-minute. Maybe you're all a bunch of thiefs. I don't have to prove where Tony got it. The fact is you both are mysteriously writing the same thing. So let's say Tony got it from James, that makes it okay, because you got it from James too! Or maybe James got it from Tony, well, that still makes it okay for you. Or maybe you're the mastermind behind Tony AND James, and they are both stealing from YOU!!!Oh, how's the old saying go "No honor among thieves!"
Gail
P.S. Faith, is it alright to go into a bank and rob it as long as you're wearing a "mask"? (Yeah, that's it . . . as long as you remain anonymous it doesn't matter what you do, right ...?)
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.
That thiefs gets the money, huh?Where's my profit--where's my fame?
Give us the link where you see Tony's article.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
Sometimes the thief just gets the "glory"!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.
Gail, drop the namecaling.Faith, drop the p;agersim. If you sire a text and want not to reveal the author, just say "Source withheld".
-- ZAR-MOD (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2005.
Where's my glory?--you don't even know my name.And where's the link that you took Tony's article from?
What's wrong Gail?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
I declared a permanent *Author unknown* to this forum awhile ago!What took you so long to tell Gail to stop the name calling and character assasination that she always resorts to when she can't get past an excellent point that proves her religion to be nothing more than that--a religion.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
To Faith (in empathy) and to Gail (vicariously through Faith)You know, if i steal a book from a store in order to show you a page full of quotes in order to validate a point I'm making, I guess you could bash me for being a thief and you could end a discussion with me based solely on your principles.
If my friend steals the book from the store and I borrow the book from him, and you cannot prove if the book is stolen or not and you end a discussion with me based on your principles, I would have to question why you are ending the discussion. I'm sorry that the book is stolen, however, since the I've already showed you the page, would you please give me your feedback on the page.
One step further... if I am completely unaware that the book was stolen (ie, I think that my friend IS the author of the book) and you claim that the book is stolen, and I claim that I really did not know that, and you call me a thief anyway, I would REALLY question why you are ending our discussion. And by the way, the fact that I showed you an entire page of the book does not mean I was trying to steal the material. Sometimes, other people just happen to say things better than I.
Yes, I should quote my sources, I'm sorry for not doing so. I'm quoting (or paraphrasing) the author to get a point across, not trying to get money, not trying to get an A, not trying to look cool, JUST trying to get my point across. Ok, i messed up for not giving credit where credit was due from the beginning. But we all do that or something like that, or something equivalently wrong like that sometimes.
But, my friend, do not miss the point. Now that we're through ranting at each other, could we please get back to the discussion at hand? Please comment on my previous post, even if it really came from so and so or a different so and so, and not originally from me.
(What I would say if I were Faith)
(Or does my opinion not count because I'm under a "pseudonym?")
-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 29, 2005.
Thank you rina--that was amusing...What you don't know is that I learned not to post the author of any article I post because the topic turns to author bashing. In particular--if that a source is Dave Hunt or James White--forget it! The post will simply get lost in a onslaught of attacks about the author--rather than his excellent points.
Gail is famous for searching the web to see if she can figure out my source so she can sidetrack the article itself. It is a game she plays only when the article is particularly good and she has no rebuttal.
This time she goofed and somehow came up with the wrong author...and it is very telling that she won't reveal her link.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------- ok, i'm a bit confused here. if i'm not mistaken, i thought i once read that origen had some theological issues and when a protestant uses something origen said, a catholic will claim that origen wasn't the end all be all of church fathers and is not quotable material. on the other hand, when it suits a catholic need, origen is quoted. ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------just to clarify, i wasn't calling david a catholic, i was just making a generalization based on previous experience. once again, it wasn't meant to attack anyone.
-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 29, 2005.
Rina,When someone takes a quote out of a book, that's fine, (as long as they site their source). Faith has been asked to site her sources over and over again, but she purposefully applies her name RATHER than siting her source, or even simply applying "anonymous" at the end so that people are not misled into believing the work is her's.
If I am in college, and I type a term paper and use someone else's work, I'll get kicked out of school. I did not "steal" the work for money, I stole it for the "grade." If I am a journalist and I use the work of another and apply my name I get fired. I did not do it for the money, I'm already getting a paycheck, I did it for the "fame."
Faith thinks because she uses an pseudonym that she can sin with impunity, and I am truly sorry, Rina, that you apparently have as few scruples as does she.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.
The difference Gail, is that as a student you would be applying your real name to the work for credit to yourself.You do not know who I am. I do not use my real name and I am not looking for any credit--just trying to avoid the unnecessary sabbatosh of these fine authors. You are the biggest offender when it comes right down to it.
I want to debate the issues, not the author. Even when I did try just signing anonymous poster--it caused a discussion about whether ot not that was alright to do and ended again in attacking either me or the anonymous source--with absolutely no regard for the actual content or subject.
It is a definate ploy used when you know you can't rebuke the subject and points raised. And although it's quite telling--and I( should be flattered--it still derails the topic altogether and the discussion fizzes out. I know that that is what you hope for, but then if you keep doing that--there is really no purpose for the discussion board-- hm?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.
"He (or she) who says (s)he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him (her."
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.
It figures that you would use even that simple verse totally out of context. It's not applicable, Gail...lol!
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.
And only you would believe that you could be a liar and a thief and still remain IN HIM. Ahhhh, the folly of it!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.
Still waiting for that link where you copy and pasted Tony's article, Gail?When are you going to provide it?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.
Oh mylanta,I am beginning to understand what faith is going through (more empathy coming your way, faith).
Perhaps you misunderstand my hypothetical examples, Gail. Wherever Faith got her sources from, her point was still made and is still being sidetracked. If someone has no creativity but they're great at finding info that expresses what they wish to say, what is wrong with that?
The wrongness is the fact that she didn't quote her source. But if I recall, this all started because she pasted a response using someone else's work as if her error was that she had no imagination.
You pushed it further to say that she was a thief. When you couldn't make the thief label stick because you couldn't prove she pasted from a stolen work, you went back to calling her a thief because she didn't quote her source. Well, as I recall, she did give up the author's name eventually. Are you Catholic enough to forgive her?
So BACK TO THE TOPIC... will you forever not reply to her post or will you let it ride?
This reeks of politics. I have watched way to many debates where the liberal attacks the conservative when the conservative makes really awesome points. The liberal appeals to the emotions of the crowd to elicit a negative response towards the conservative. And it seems to work, it seems as if the liberals win the debate because the crowd is on their side, jeering at the oppostion.
Now, I don't want to accuse you of doing this. All I'm saying is that something is starting to smell fishy, like maybe for once Faith might be right about something. Whether her point was right, or whether she's right about your tactics, I will decline taking an ultimate standpoint because I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt.
A point is a point, wherever it comes from. At least you could debate her point for all readers of this forum who might be confused or being led astray by Faith. For all you know, I'm a Protestant who is seeking the truth or a lapsed Catholic being led astray.
Actually, I won't reveal my true self for the purpose of getting both sides of these debates more objectively. Sometimes on a forum, I goad people for an answer even if I'm on the "same side" as them. The reason for this is to push people to make themselves clearer by asking key questions to draw out their answers, sometimes because I don't know the answer very clearly myself or I'm having a hard time trying to understand something. So if I seem like I'm goading you, it's because I wish you to make yourself clearer on the REAL reason why you won't denounce Faith's point (excuse me, Tony's or James' point).
Here's another example. Say that an atheist claims that Jesus is God. Well the source stinks so the point is not worth talking about? Say an atheist says that Jesus is not God. Well, the source stinks so the point is not worth talking about? I personally don't care for the source, I don't care if the atheist stole the quote from someone else, I care for the nature of the argument. Isn't that what a forum is about? The nature of the discussion?
It seems that you and I are on different wavelengths in this regard. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying that you and I differ on what appeals to us the most about this forum.
since you and Faith disagree about the use of quotes and the scruples of the game, then maybe you should MAKE THE RULES of the game starting now. If she agrees with them, then you can hold her accountable for her actions.
But the discussion can end here, right now. Gail, are you sidetracking the discussion because you refuse to or can't debate Faith's stolen points? Then say so right now. Faith, do you agree to disclose your sources, or if you do not wish to disclose them, at least make sure that you make it known that you mooched the info? Gail, do you agree to not author bash and argue based on the arguments themselves? See, these are things that you can mutually agree or disagree on before you continue to beat each other over your heads with your bibles.
With love, Marina
-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 30, 2005.
We've been down this road too many times rina,Gail will find a reason to complain, even when I post "author withheld" or "author unknown" because I did agree to do that when I was moderating this forum myself.
All it did was stir up the exact thing I try to avoid in not posting the author in the first place. Gail is famous for this tactic--as is rod.
She will not attempt to address my points because she will assert that they come from an anti-Catholic author and she has many choice words for these men. In truth--it is because it enrages her that these sources are so right.
I appreciate your attempt to help--though I do not agree with your conclusion that I have no imagination....Lol!
I could certainly sit here and by memory--write what I have learned and come to agree with in these works--in my own writing. I actually often do. Sometimes I combine different theology along with my own additions., however, for the most part it is an issue of time. It is so much easier to just post the answer already typed out, whether from my files or a web link--than to have to put in the kind of time involved in writing.
I have this thing called *life* going on around me with five kids and tons to do....so I guess I get lazy. I used to always cite my source, but of course, I learned the hard way that it doesn't pay.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.
Rina,It is quite noble of you to come to your sister's defense. However, Faith has done this sort of thing many many times before, too numerous to count in the past. She has been asked nicely to at least have the decency to let people know the work doesn't come from her. She doesn't have to give the author's real name, but simply typing "anonymous" would tip the readers on this forum to the fact she herself did not do the work, BUT she refuses to do that. Her cockamamie excuse really doesn't add up, does it? How does letting the forum regulars on this forum know that her work came from "somewhere else" jeopardize anyone? The truth is pretty obvious, Rina, Faith wants the recognition and glory for herself.
Again, Rina, I say to you that if you think it is alright, having been warned numerous times, to behave in such a childish and "sleazy" manner, then all I can says is "birds of feather stick together," and I would be reluctant to have any sort of meaningful debate with you, or any one else for that matter, with that type of character.
Faith has been on this forum for at least over a year, probably longer, and we have debated the same issues over and over and over again. Sometimes it's just time to say "enough is enough" and move on.
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.
rina.., a quick search through some old threads will reveal that what I am telling you is the truth-- that Gail is simply a name calling, offensive poster who seems to get worse the more she is losing a debate--and win is what she's hear to do.Until she responds to the points of the initial post or at least reveals her link to Tony--this thread is dead.
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.
Yikes, I must have hit a nerve. What's with all the ranting, Faith.Gail
BTW, do a google search yourself, Faith. Type in Tony Pirog and find it yourself. When you find him, ask him why he's been stealing your work!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.
I already did that Gail. Nothing turns up that I can see. Why not just link us to it? Your good at that, right? Well, maybe not so good with actually linking us--you don't bother with those types of technicalities--but you could at least post the address., yes?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.
The evidence and facts remain:Gail gives credit when quoting other works.
Faith does not usually quote her sources for fear of "bashing" the authors. Hislop has been quoted, it seems.
But, you can always know one's motives by their fruit. Truth is found in the "light", not the "darkness".
BTW, Hislop is worth "bashing".
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.
This is strange:I cannot post my sources because:
1. I'm too busy.
2. I'm worried about what somebody may think.
3. My fingers are too short to reach some keys.
4. My sources are questianable.
5. Sources? I dun need no steenkin sorsess!
6. It doesn't matter who spent the time providing the work. I can used it how I please.
7. Author? What is that?
8. "Four score and seven years ago..." by Faith.....uh, Lincoln, sorry.
9. The ends justify the means!! (Unknown).
10. Just because I'm a Christian, it doesn't mean that I actully have to do the right thing, rules or no rules.
..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.
Ian---"don't miss footnote 56. "white man speak with forked tongue" -- Leonardo Boff? That is an understatement!
Anyway I Posted a response for you on a comment you made ealier, So I put in the Cushing Letter thread since it seems dormant at this time, and it is off-topic and somewhat long for this thread.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CiJ9
-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 31, 2005.
"5. Sources? I dun need no steenkin sorsess!"lol!!! I think it goes like this:
"Sources? I ain't got no-soriss. I don' need no-sorsiss. I don' got to show you en-nee-steenk-een sorsiss!"
You got to hear the rythm of that last part.
That was funny; thanks rod.
-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 31, 2005.
Wonderful!!.........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.
Ok, about 2 or 3 minutes have passed and I have Treasure of the Sierra Madre playing in my head. I'm still chuckling over that great line. Worse yet, I wonder if Faith owns a sombrero, pistolas, and no badjez. Sorry, Faith. But, the more one thinks about it, the more one is to fall on the floor laughing out loud!...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.
Okay, now back to my article:I just can't help but wonder what makes you take the words in John 6 so absurdly literal? Would you be doing so, had you not been told by the Church how to interpret the meaning?
Indeed it is commonly said that the Roman Catholic Church, regarding John 6, especially verses 53-57, 'takes the Bible for what it says,' while the Protestants are somehow seeking to avoid the *clear* teaching of the Lord Jesus. But let's explore the passage together....
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.
But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.
John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..
Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.
But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.
Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?
The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.
They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)
Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text. {Author unknown}
*********************************************
Am I the only one here who sees the very clear and valid poits made?
-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2005.
Yes, you are the only one here who sees the very clear and valid poits made?BTW, what are poits? Is that anything like "badjez"?
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
FaithThe Jews walked away from that literal meaning, too. You are walking along with them?
..........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
I found a few reference to poits, but I should post only one. The other references were not really nice...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
Clearly rod, the article has you stumped!You can't attack the author, so now you'll try to confuse this article with your nonsense...nice try, but if you continue--I'll ask Elpidio to delete your wasted bandwidth. Making a big deal over a typo is childish and reveals your inability to debate.
Here's the article again, in case anyone might like to respond to it. Not that anyone could rebuke it's content--pretty good stuff in here:
(rod need not apply unless he has something of value to add)
Indeed it is commonly said that the Roman Catholic Church, regarding John 6, especially verses 53-57, 'takes the Bible for what it says,' while the Protestants are somehow seeking to avoid the *clear* teaching of the Lord Jesus. But let's explore the passage together....
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.
But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.
John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..
Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.
But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.
Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?
The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.
They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)
Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text. {Author unknown}
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.
...and you lack a sense of humor, Faith.Go ahead and have my posts deleted. I get the poits clearly!
.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
If your poits are so clear and correct, then why are there a billion Catholics who do not agree with your view, Faith? You can post all day long with your symbolic views of the Holy Eucharist, but it is there in the Bible that His body and blood do exist. You may choose to reject it and call it something else. You may also walk away, as some of the Jews did. It boils down to faith in the Holy Eucharist. You did have faith at one time, yes?Ooops, my posts have no value. I keep forgetting.
.......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
That old time religion--Judaism--is trying to convince me that Jesus was of no consequence to my Salvation. Some Protestants are trying to show me that The Holy Eucharist is purely symbolic. Hmm? It sounds like Christ is being attacked..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
Here is a discussion about Transubstantiation.We've been over this before. But, you ain't gonna change your mind, Faith.
........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
The following is probably not "valuable" to Faith, but I'll post it anyway. Somebody out there may share similar insights:[From another forum.]
Here is what I understand from John 6.
1. When we eat the Body and Blood of Christ, we are owning up to the sacrifice of Christ. The seperation of body and blood means death. The reason for Christ' sacrifice is because of our sin.
2. When we eat His Body and Blood, we become one with Christ and He is in us.
3. When we eat His Body and Blood, we accept Christ as our Saviour.
4. When we eat His Body and Blood, we also receive the Spirit of God.
5. ...we become part of the Body of Christ--Grace.
6. When we eat the Holy Eucharist, we remember His death and resurrection that paid the price for our salvation.
7. "Transubstantiation" is when the wafer becomes all of the above mentioned parts.
rod.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.
[End excerpt.]
........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.
Still unable to comment or address the article rod? Why?Here it is again. If you can't comment on the article--please refrain from posting and allow others to see it...okay?:
Indeed it is commonly said that the Roman Catholic Church, regarding John 6, especially verses 53-57, 'takes the Bible for what it says,' while the Protestants are somehow seeking to avoid the *clear* teaching of the Lord Jesus. But let's explore the passage together....
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?
Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.
But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.
John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..
Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.
But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.
Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?
The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.
They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)
Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?
The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text. {Author unknown}
Anyone out there have a head for this brilliat theology?? Argue his points if you can. I'd love to see someone try....seriously.
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.
Faith,This has been addressed in detail on thread "Necessity of water baptism 3A"
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 01, 2005.
I haven't posted in that thread, so I don't see how.
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.
I know who would really think James is brilliant! Those who rejected Christ's teachings and quit following Him!!!Hey Faith, who gives James the "authority" to decide what's literal and what's not?
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.
Don't forget the Devil, the Devil thinks that *anyone* who believes they are correct and Christ's church is wrong is the smartest guy in town!Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 01, 2005.
The Scriptures determine these things for us. God used common literary sense.., His authors used the right words and the right symbolism in the proper context. To understand the honest literary sense of the writing doesn't even require you to be a believer--just a good reader.It takes a believer guided by the Holy Spirit to be able to make sense of the spiritual meaning--not to determine how to read the symbolic language and the parallels made.
I suppose you think onlt those in the Roman Catholic religion have this right! Lol!1 But that is self-appointed.
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.
Frank, should your little saying mean something to me in relation to this thread?What's your point? It doesn't seem to apply.
And Gail--you just can't help yourself, can you. If at first you can't succeed, trash the author??
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.
It doesn't really matter who wrote the article, Faith. The fact of the matter is that there were followers of Christ who felt exactly as your man does!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.
"It takes a believer guided by the Holy Spirit to be able to make sense of the spiritual meaning--not to determine how to read the symbolic language and the parallels made.""They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
Maybe, St. Ignatius, who sat directly under the tutelage of St. John - - you know, the guy who wrote Chapter 6 of the book which carries his name -- was guided by the Holy Spirit, and your man IS NOT!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.
And maybe you are reading into Antioch'Epistle in the same way you do John's gospel?
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.