THE TRUE CHURCH

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/RYLE2.HTM ^ | 11/4/03 | J.C. Ryle

[Quester]

Yeah. Not sure why this is relevant, honestly. God the Father does not really have eyes at all. "Spiritual" or otherwise.

Why do you say this ? On what do you base such a statement ?

Scripture says that He does have eyes (obviously spiritual eyes).

He just doesn't have physical eyes like you do.

What do you think God's definition of an eye would be ?

So you are saying that Jesus is saying that His own flesh is useless? Is the Incarnation pointless? Does Jesus being human, taking on flesh mean anything? Or is it all just "profit nothing?"

Jesus' flesh is offered to and is of value to God, not to us.

Having His justice satisfied by the offering of the body and blood of Jesus, ... God quickens (gives life to) our spiritual life with His Spirit.

If you will, God is profitted (as to the accomplishment of His will) by the offereing of the body and blood of Jesus.

We (believers) are profitted through the life endowed to us by His Spirit.

And now we're right back where we started. We both agree that we can receive spiritual life by Jesus' words. Now, why do you think that this means that we must take Him to be speaking metaphorically?

To me, knowing how important Jesus' words are, I do not automatically say "well, He might have said that, but He doesn't really mean it to be taken literally." I mean, absent any other evidence.

Jesus, Himself stated that His method of speaking to the multitudes was through parables (i.e. metaphorically). It was common in His teaching.

Further, when Jesus privately taught His disciples the meaning of His statements to the multitude (as He did in John 6:63), ... it is a good indication that those teachings to the multitudes were metaphoric in nature.

[polemikos]

This argument is very old and very lame. Jews are responsible for bringing my OT through the ages and it is entirely about Jesus. Now for them to say that since they "gave me" my OT then who am I to believe anyone but them to interpret it would be pretty foolish too wouldn't it.

Except for the fact that Jesus came and established a new covenant with us. Did I miss the Second Coming wherein He established your bible, your church, or your interpretation?(Is that denomination 32,438 or 32,439?)

This argument is also blasphemous because it puts man in the place of God in His bringing His Word to me.

Oh, and I thought "no private interpretation" actually means just that because otherwise we are lead "unto our own destruction". A major flaw in your argument is that unequivocally the Protestant approach leads to error in fundamental doctrines. The only problem is, no one can say authoritatively who is right. Sounds like a pretty good case of being lead to destruction.

Now if only the RC's who work this sorry argument to death would start reading that book that "they brought to the world(not)" then we could dispense with the many RC traditions that do not appear in the bible.

The CC having written the NT books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and defined the canon of Scripture, and interpreted it for 2,000 years, often by intellectual giants and profoundly holy saints, I think has a pretty good idea of what's what. And yet, the entire foundation of Bible Christianity, namely sola scriptura, is extra-biblical. It is a circular argument and self-negating theory. Upon whom shall I rely?

[biblewonk]

Well, that's certainly a novel use of that verse! Sorry, but the issue is over calling Christ by a name you allege is unbiblical... not adding stuff to the Book of Revelations. Unless you care to explain it to me better, it seems like you've got a complete nonsequitor.

Perhaps you'd care to explore the bible and consider how God feels about His Name. After doing that ask yourself if man really should be messing with His Name. Giving God new names is the same as adding to the scriptures, it is a sin that is specifically mentioned in the bible. What is worse, using God's name lightly or giving God a diffent name? Go call your boss by some name you made up or by some title that you've decided to give him and see how well that works.

But it is only RC's who go and give Mary a thousand pompus names, even more than God has given His Son, and who go and rename God at your whim and who go and take God's names and apply them to your Pope and see nothing wrong with any of this. Certainly those responsible for such acts will burn and what shall we say of those led astray.

[RnMomof7]

A couple of additional aspects of the incredibly rich discourse of John 6: When Jesus speaks of eating his flesh in the latter verses (Jn 6:54,56-57) the greek word for "eat" is trogo, which means "to GNAW, to CHEW" which is not the language of a metaphor.

It also means simply to eat..but your response tells me two things..1) The Catholic Church taught error for many years as it was taught never to "chew" the host...those folks must all be in Hell as they never did Gnaw..

and 2) I have reproved fellow Protestants for saying Catholics gnaw on the kidneys of Christ..I guess they are right..I owe them an apology .

BTW there is no reason why that word would not be used in a metaphor . It was the desire of Christ to shock the hearers and to drive off the chaff..

Also, in John 6:60 (Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?) the listeners obviously understand Jesus in the literal sense. In the next verse, John 6:61, Jesus confirms this asking if they are offended. And then in John 6:66 (666) these followers who understand Jesus literally walk away from our Lord. The only place in the NT where Jesus loses followers for a doctrinal reason.

Please read the scripture with clarity . In John 6: 60 and John 6:61 the reaction of the crowd was the suggestion of a Jew breaking the law and eating flesh and drinking blood. The murmured about this among themselves..BUT They did not leave over that . What drove them away where the words between verses 60 and 66..what were they ?

Jhn 6:63   It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. He just said His words were LIFE, not the works of men..

   Jhn 6:64   But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

     Jhn 6:65   And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. </

A shocking thought for those that believed in salvation by their WORKS

   Jhn 6:66   From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

They did not leave with the discourse on the bread..they grumbled ...
But it was the teaching on Election that drove them away. They could not work their way to heaven by the law. That is what caused them to leave

Of special note is what Jesus does NOT do. In all his other preachings, if there is confusion, Jesus explains his meaning. But here, Jesus lets followers depart from him. Would Jesus let a follower leave over a misunderstanding?

Quite the opposite..Jesus was very clear..THAT is what drove them away

Is the Eucharist a "hard saying"? Is the Real Presence hard to discern? Absolutely. But it is also such an incredible gift.

Quite the opposite..to a law based people that wanted to work their way to heaven. They did not have to surrender their will or repent of their sins..all they had to do is worship the host as their savior

[SoothingDave]

Why do you say this ? On what do you base such a statement ?

Common sense.

What do you think God's definition of an eye would be ?

I think a better question is what is your definition of an eye?

God the Father, Eternal Spirit, may see, but He has no eyes. Eyes are biological units which turn reflected light into impulses which a brain then makes into images. God doesnt' have eyes.

Jesus' flesh is offered to and is of value to God, not to us.

Yes, it does have value to us. You border on blasphemy. You think Jesus taking on flesh does us no good? Inestimable donum, the gift of priceless value.

If you will, God is profitted (as to the accomplishment of His will) by the offereing of the body and blood of Jesus. We (believers) are profitted through the life endowed to us by His Spirit.

OK. Now if you go to work and earn money and give some to your wife to buy groceries, by your logic, you would say that your work profits you nothing. Cause your wife brought the groceries home. Your boss didn't pay you in ground beef and milk.

Man, if you can't see the connection between Jesus being sacrificed and our own benefit from that, then you truly are lost.

Further, when Jesus privately taught His disciples the meaning of His statements to the multitude (as He did in John 6:63), ... it is a good indication that those teachings to the multitudes were metaphoric in nature.

In this case, He did no such thing. All He said was "my words are very very very important." He never said "it was all a lark."

SD

[SoothingDave]

The Hebrew scriptures are written without vowels because that is the way Semitic languages are written.

With the vowels ommitted, is there potential for ambiguity?

SD

[biblewonk]

Upon whom shall I rely?

You should rely on the bible. Even a goofed up RC bible would lead a believer to enough truth to show him where to find more. Trust people who tell you not to trust people but to trust the bible only.

[SoothingDave]

Trust people who tell you not to trust people but to trust the bible only.

Trust people who tell me not to trust people? Sounds like turtles all the way down to me.

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It also means simply to eat..but your response tells me two things..1) The Catholic Church taught error for many years as it was taught never to "chew" the host...those folks must all be in Hell as they never did Gnaw..

Sorry, but WTF are you talking about? The Catholic Church teaching not to chew Hosts? Is this a new Sister Mary Agnes told me to behave this way in grade school so it must be true dogma? Every post, you become more ridiculous.

They did not leave with the discourse on the bread..they grumbled ...
But it was the teaching on Election that drove them away. They could not work their way to heaven by the law. That is what caused them to leave

This is a cute heresy du jour. Having been over this YOPIOS previously with you, I must wonder if you went back in time to personally interview these Israelites about this. 'Cause otherwise, I don't see how you could possibly read their minds as to knowing their motives.

Why didn't they leave after verse 44, where he said the same thing?

St. John 6.44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.

Recap - let's compare:

St. John 6.66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

"No man can come to me, except the Father ... draw him" and "no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father". Yep, they say the same thing.

I guess they were too stupid to hear it the first time?

That kind of wholesome milk makes today's dose of Reformation Mills YOPIOS Bible-O's get all soggy.

Better luck next time.

[RnMomof7]

How do we reconcile this doctrine of the "true Church" with Christ's description of the "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew 13, where we see that the Kingdom (i.e. the Church) is a field containing both wheat and tares, a net containing good fish and bad? It seems that what Christ has in mind for the "true Church" is one which (before the Last Judgement anyway) contains the saved AND those to be damned.

Scripture never says the Kingdom of Heaven is "the church"

However that aside some read that verse as the unsaved in the church (that would be the work for your salvation group ,the goats) Same with a catch of fish...Lots of folks planning on making Jesus unnecessary will be thrown back

Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Luk 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule

Kingdom

a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom b) of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah c) of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah's kingdom 2) a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king 3) used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

Heaven

1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it a) the universe, the world b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced c) the sidereal or starry heavens 2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings

Those Parables are about the sorting out of the visible church at the end of time

[Quester]

What do you think God's definition of an eye would be ?

I think a better question is what is your definition of an eye?

Why ask me, ... rather than the Author ?

Jesus' flesh is offered to and is of value to God, not to us.

Yes, it does have value to us. You border on blasphemy. You think Jesus taking on flesh does us no good?

Of course we benefit from the sacrifice, ... but the sacrifice of Jesus, in and of itself, ... does nothing immediate for us. It must be accepted by and acted upon by God.

Take your example of my being paid in cash. That cash is of no real value to feeding us, ... unless I take it and trade it for food.

Consider that our new life does not arise out of Jesus' broken body ... but out of God's Spirit ... just like it is that food that feeds you is not composed from the substance of any money you may have ... but only from the value of your money to a grocer.

Jesus body and blood is solely satisfying to the Father. Satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice, ... God breathes life into our spirits.

OK. Now if you go to work and earn money and give some to your wife to buy groceries, by your logic, you would say that your work profits you nothing. Cause your wife brought the groceries home. Your boss didn't pay you in ground beef and milk.

And I cannot eat what my boss paid me. What my boss paid me must be presented to one who so values what my boss paid me, ... that he/she gives me food in trade for it. Then I may eat.

In this case, He did no such thing. All He said was "my words are very very very important." He never said "it was all a lark."

He said ... "The flesh profits nothing ... it is the spirit which brings life, ... my words are spirit and they are life."

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Hebrew scriptures are written without vowels because that is the way Semitic languages are written.

Hmmm .. Paleo-Hebrew had vowels. It also used letters that look Greco-Phoenecian, and not the standard Aramaic.

Take a look at the alphabets.

1=North Semitic alphabet (Paleo-Hebrew); 2=Earliest Greek character (9th-6th centuries BC; 4-5 Eastern branch (4. Ionic; 5. Attic); 7=Western branch; 9=Classic Greek; 10=Names of the letters (those in parentheses; names of letters now discarded in classic Greek.

Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek alphabets.

Are "aleph" (a), "he" (e), "jod" (i), "ajin" (o) not vowels?

Of course, considering the manuscripts are all in standard Hebrew and not Paleo-Hebrew, obviously we know that IF they were written prior to the Babylonian Captivity that they were translated into a new alphabet and updated language at that time.

[SoothingDave]

Why ask me, ... rather than the Author ?

Cause I'm talking to you.

Of course we benefit from the sacrifice, ... but the sacrifice of Jesus, in and of itself, ... does nothing immediate for us. It must be accepted by and acted upon by God.

Yes, of course. So why are you trying to downplay it? IT does not profit us nothing, it profits the entire everlasting life.

Jesus body and blood is solely satisfying to the Father. Satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice, ... God breathes life into our spirits.

I don't see where you get this from that one verse. The sacrifice is an exchange of gifts, like all sacrifices. We offer to God and He blesses us with His favor. He doesn't do an end around on us, but rather blesses us with what is at hand. We do nto offer Jesus to Him and get credited in some spiritual bank accoutn that then mystically we receive from. No. We receive from God blessing and grace from sharing in the very same sacrifice.

And I cannot eat what my boss paid me. What my boss paid me must be presented to one who so values what my boss paid me, ... that he/she gives me food in trade for it. Then I may eat.

Exactly. It's amazing how your words are so very true, yet yoru position is so very wrong.. The "Food" given in trade is nothing other than the very Victim Himself, who is our Spiritual nourishment.

None of this means it is a metaphor.

He said ... "The flesh profits nothing ... it is the spirit which brings life, ... my words are spirit and they are life."

Yes, exactly. I just wish you would think about what this actually says. The flesh, our flesh, our worldly body profits nothing from the exchange. It is our spirit, our eternal part that profits from eating and drinking Jesus. His words are what give us our very life. So we should do what He says, and believe it.

Jesus is not saying that His flesh is worthless.

SD

[malakhi]

With the vowels ommitted, is there potential for ambiguity?

Only if you don't know how the words are supposed to be pronounced. nd vn thn, mst wrds wldnt b dffclt t fgr t.

Now, if you are a native Greek speaker, and you are trying to translate the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, and you don't consult with someone who actually knows what potentially ambiguous words mean in context, then sure, you might run into trouble.

[RnMomof7]

It also means simply to eat..but your response tells me two things..1) The Catholic Church taught error for many years as it was taught never to "chew" the host...those folks must all be in Hell as they never did Gnaw..
Sorry, but WTF are you talking about? The Catholic Church teaching not to chew Hosts? Is this a new Sister Mary Agnes told me to behave this way in grade school so it must be true dogma? Every post, you become more ridiculous.

Seems I was not alone in this teaching..You can tell you do not know the pre vatican 2 church

http://www.saint-malachy.org/jjob_Mass/050_CommunionRite1.htm

The reality of almost all the assembly receiving communion is a phenomenon of the last fifty years. Many older Catholics were drilled by the piety of another time, such as "you cannot let the host drop, your hands cannot touch the vessel containing the bread nor the cup, it's a sin to chew the host, etc." The miracle of transubstantiation and the extreme reverence to be expressed for the awesome mystery of the eucharist was translated into the pattern used for receiving holy communion. No wonder some became very scrupulous and stressed out when they prepared to receive! No wonder that an intensely privatized feeling was cultivated! No wonder that it continues in those instances where the same out-dated ritual behavior is taught at first communion!

http://www.sawaltonstudio.50megs.com/marilyn/mk92.html
According to our belief the wafer is truly the Body of Christ. As such, the host in the Pre-Vatican II days was surrounded with rules and regulation. We were not allowed to eat after midnight and should not drink for an hour before communion. In fact, our teacher told us to be very careful while brushing our teeth. We must not swallow any toothpaste or it would spoil our fast. Most especially, no one...no one was allowed to touch the host except the priest. Even he could only hold the host between his forefinger and his thumb. The communicant knelt at the altar rail that separated the priest from his flock. He and an altar boy would start at one end and serve communion to the faithful. The altar boy held a golden palate under one's chin, just in case the host fell. After we received the host, we were told NOT to chew the host. That would be the utmost sacrilege!

Also seems Mary has an opinion

http://www.tldm.org/directives/d146.htm

BOW  YOUR  KNEES
"Remember, My child, shout it from the roof. My Son is with you until the end of your time. It is truly His Presence, His Real Presence, His divine Presence, His Body and His Blood. Do not treat Him with disrespect! Bow your knees; cover your head! Do not chew Him!" - Our Lady, June 8, 1974 
DESECRATION
"My child, you ask why I cry? I shed tears of great anguish. I watch anew the desecration to My Son's Body being committed upon earth.      "None shall place their hands upon His Body! My Son has given you in trust those He has chosen among mankind to represent Him, your priests. None others shall carry My Son to mankind! You shall not defile His Body by giving Him into the hands of women, or those that have not been prepared by the Father as legally ordained priests in the houses of God. Laziness, preoccupied with the world and the pleasures of the flesh! Return to your habits and set an example as a man of God in the House of God-an example that will gather the sheep, not scatter them!" - Our Lady, November 1, 1974 

They did not leave with the discourse on the bread..they grumbled ... But it was the teaching on Election that drove them away. They could not work their way to heaven by the law. That is what caused them to leave This is a cute heresy du jour. Having been over this YOPIOS previously with you, I must wonder if you went back in time to personally interview these Israelites about this. 'Cause otherwise, I don't see how you could possibly read their minds as to knowing their motives.

Just read the word herman instead of all your "Catechisms

You will be amazed what you will learn. The fact is they did not leave when He gave the bread of life discourse ..deal with hit

Why didn't they leave after verse 44, where he said the same thing?

Not really ..He did not say that it is the Fathers choice and not there word in that verse.

St. John 6.44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day. Recap - let's compare: St. John 6.66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

Well let me turn it on you ..Why did they not leave right after the first bread teaching ? Here??     Jhn 6:51   I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.      Jhn 6:52   The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

That kind of wholesome milk makes the belief that a pice of bread saves you but Jesus does not.... YOPIOS Bible -O's get all soggy. Better luck next time Herman

BTW You really do need to know the REAL Catholic Church..you know the one with the Latin Mass..you have never learned the faith of the fathers..your ignorance of it shows all over the place.

I ask again are the generations of Catholics for hundreds of years damned because they did not gnaw as ordered in John6 ??

[SoothingDave]

With the vowels ommitted, is there potential for ambiguity?

Only if you don't know how the words are supposed to be pronounced. nd vn thn, mst wrds wldnt b dffclt t fgr t.

That's a "yes" then? Maybe 99% is clear from context, but there is room for ambiguity. Especially, I would think in more figurative and prophetic passages.

SD

[maryz]

The Hebrew scriptures are written without vowels because that is the way Semitic languages are written.

Huh? My Tanakh has vowels.

[SoothingDave]

Yr Tnkh hs vwls?

SD

[malakhi]

Are "aleph" (a), "he" (e), "jod" (i), "ajin" (o) not vowels?

That is precisely correct. In Hebrew, these are consonants, not vowels.

aleph is a silent gutteral.

he is actually an "H", not an "E".

yod is a "Y", not an "I".

ayin is also a silent or barely aspirated gutteral.

In written Hebrew, vowel sounds may be added by the use of dots and dashes -- called "points" -- to clarify pronunciation. They are written either above, below, or inside the letter. Some of these are for vowels. Others indicate whether, for example pei has a "P" or an "F" sound. In Torah scrolls used in synagogues, the text is unpointed. This is true as well for modern Hebrew. Most written Hebrew in Israel is written without vowels indicated.

[polemikos]

Even a goofed up RC bible...

And your authority for making such a statement? The Bible, as determined by the Catholic Church, stood unchanged for over 1,000 years. And yet, "reformers" with no biblical authority, took it upon themselves to change it. The "reformers" exercised more arbitrary latitude than any pope or council has ever done. If you want to follow the faith as set by Jesus, as followed by the early church, then as a "Bible Christian" there is no substitute for the Catholic Bible.

trust the bible only.

As pointed out previously, the Bible doesn't say that. To believe that is a "tradition of men".

Rather than sidestepping the issues I raised earlier, why not address them head on?