Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Interpretation of John 6:25-69
Catholic Apologetics.org ^ | 03-09-10 | Dr. Robert Schihl and Paul Flanagan

Posted on 03/09/2010 9:49:50 PM PST by Salvation

Catholic Biblical Apologetics


Apologetics without apology!


What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about ...? ... and why?

This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.

This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:

The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.

Interpretation of John 6:25-69

Interpretation of John 6:25-69

Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes--biographical, Jesus walking on the sea--biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds' need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to "true bread from heaven (v. 32)" ... "I am the bread (v. 35)." "I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41)." This is God saying this: "I am the bread that came down from heaven." If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.

Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended.

Jn 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Jn 6:53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."
Jn 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Jn 6:55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; catholiclist
Continuing with the different senses and interpretation of the Gospel.
1 posted on 03/09/2010 9:49:50 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

2 posted on 03/09/2010 9:51:21 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Foundation

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Apologetics Without Apology
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: An Incomplete Picture
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Dearly Beloved Catholic Brothers and Sisters

Being Catholic and Christian: Faith and Salvation

Catholic Biblical Apologetics:Being Catholic & Christian:Faith and Salvation-Authoriative
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Being Catholic & Christian: Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Post-Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: A Biblical Portrait
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: "Being Saved"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Catholic Response to "Are You Saved?"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Knowledge of Salvation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Faith and Works
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Process of Christian Initiation

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Labels Among Christians
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities, Roman Catholicism
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: American Christian Branches Among European Founded Churches
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Labels Among Christians
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities, Roman Catholicism
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: American Christian Branches Among European Founded Churches
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine

Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thes 2:15) The Bible

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thess 2:15): The Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Bible: Written Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Hebrew Scriptures: Books of the Old Testament
Historical and Geographical Background for the Development of the Two Old Testament Canons
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Background Chart: Development of the Old Testament Canons
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Chronology of the Apostolic Age and the Development of the New Testament Canon
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Comparison of Terms for Disputed Books
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Inspiration of the Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation: Literal Sense
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Literary Form and History of John 6:25-69
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Interpretation of John 6:25-69

3 posted on 03/09/2010 9:54:07 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Now, I really, truly am confused.


4 posted on 03/09/2010 10:00:06 PM PST by Belteshazzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

In what way are you confused?

Are you not believing the words of Christ?

**Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended. **


5 posted on 03/09/2010 10:05:31 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Belteshazzar

No, I think Belteshazzar is lacking faith in the words of Jesus, just in the interpretational leap being made in this “Hermeneutical” endeavor.

Let me simplify things a bit:

What does mankind need to live? Food and drink.

Biblical translations use “bread” to mean a variety of things - from literal bread, to a generic term for food.

Jesus was clearly saying that HE was the ultimate nourishment (in a spiritual sense) for TRUE life that comes only through Jesus Christ.

The argument (and the purpose for this article) is to defend transubstantiation - the Catholic belief that the bread and the wine used in Communion are somehow miraculously transmogrified into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This step is necessary then to justify the classification of Communion as a “sacrament” - one of the steps necessary for salvation.

Unfortunately, this then requires one to overlook the inconsistencies or worse - contradictions - that this sets up.

Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 being the most obvious and cited examples.

There are many other inconsistencies - one that is glaring to me, and should be to others, is God’s prohibition against consuming blood (Leviticus 7), and in fact - Jewish traditions held the consumption of blood to be a pagan ritual.

Even more interesting - the predominant religion (official before being replaced by “Christianity”) practiced, particularly among the soldier class, in the Roman empire -the Cult of Mithras, practiced the eating of the flesh of sacrifice, and the drinking of the blood. The belief was that drinking the blood of the sacrifice granted eternal life. Sound familiar?

So - with this context in-hand (text without context is nothing but a pretext), we should see how the “Communion”/Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Lord’s Table has evolved.

And lest we forget that the early history of the Catholic Church’s efforts to spread Christianity was through the sword and through the assimilation of local pagan religious practices into the regular practice of The Church.

But I know that I will get beat up over this post. God is not the author of confusion. Thus any interpretation or adding to God’s word that creates confusion or conflict with other portions of God’s Word cannot be of God.


6 posted on 03/09/2010 11:02:20 PM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

I believe Jesus was contrasting the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood, over and against pagan worship that you referenced.

Obviously as a Protestant I believe the blood and wine are symbolic, not actual. But I believe the point of this Bible passage is the contrast with the surrounding pagan worship.

Jesus ate the bread and wine at the Last Supper, as most have seen illustrated in the great painting by Da Vinci. He was physically present there, body and blood. No one there seemed to be under the impression that parts of His body or servings of His blood were being served as He Himself sat there and partook with them.


7 posted on 03/10/2010 12:07:00 AM PST by Persevero ("Our culture is far better than a retarded Islamic culture." -Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Obviously as a Protestant I believe the blood and wine are symbolic, not actual.

So did almost everyone else, until the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, invented the notion of transubstantiation out of whole cloth.

The doctrine of the Eucharist that was accepted semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, is that of the Real Presence.

8 posted on 03/10/2010 2:32:21 AM PST by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

“And lest we forget that the early history of the Catholic Church’s efforts to spread Christianity was through the sword and through the assimilation of local pagan religious practices into the regular practice of The Church.” —> oh, that is hilarious. You mean that The Church spread Christianity to the Roman Empire through the sword? And we worship Thor and Odin? That’s historically so inaccurate, it makes the 9/11 conspiracy theory sound sane


9 posted on 03/10/2010 3:10:20 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Locke

Transubstantiation is as big a theological joke as Joseph Smith’s golden plates.


10 posted on 03/10/2010 5:25:04 AM PST by CalvaryJohn (What is keeping that damned asteroid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Locke

No Council had to invent anything.

Christ said, “This is by Body.”

“This is my Blood.”

“Do this in remembrance of me.”

Straight from the mouth of Jesus. Absolutely the truth!


11 posted on 03/10/2010 7:32:37 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

You do know what a metaphor is?


12 posted on 03/10/2010 7:57:27 AM PST by CalvaryJohn (What is keeping that damned asteroid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman; Salvation

No to both of you. What I am really, truly confused about is why anyone (in this case, Salvation) would introduce another, nearly identical thread, a day after the first one. This is the behavior of an ADHD-plagued child, not that of someone who is looking for any serious consideration and discussion of the Biblical theology.

In the case of TheBattman’s attempt to enlist me in his own ranks, I don’t find any fewer “interpretational leap(s)” than in Salvation’s borrowed assertions. Neither is really looking at the text of John 6, but using it as, yes, a pretext to leap to their already chosen conclusions.

So, in a way, quite a lot is being revealed about the hermeneutic of each.


13 posted on 03/10/2010 8:22:22 AM PST by Belteshazzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Who said anything about worshiping Thor and Odin?

But I did say the Church spread via the sword. Remember the whole “Holy Roman Empire”? When the Catholic Church became one with the “government”, imperialism was used (and the sword/stake/etc) to “keep” the “faith”.

There is a pretty extensive list of pagan practices adopted by the Catholic Church as part of their method of assimilation. Many of our no generally accepted traditions around Christmas and Easter are prime examples.

I grew up Episcopalian (what I consider the kissing-cousin of Catholicism. I grew up with a fairly heavy respect for the Catholic Church. But then I discovered such books at Fox’s Book of Martyrs, and began studying the inconsistencies in the version of Christian history I had grown up hearing.

I began to ponder why some very faithful Christians I know did not celebrate the “traditional” way at Christmas, Easter, and so-on.

And most importantly, I began to regularly and faithfully read the Bible.

We scream here on FR about liberal revision of US History - yet so many won’t even consider digging into the history of Christianity. They are simply content to take centuries of “official” and very controlled history and tradition and don’t question anything.

There is still enough of history that the Catholic Church wasn’t able to completely destroy, burn, conceal, or re-write if one simply is willing to be open to the possibility that the truth is out there.

And please understand - that while I may come across as a Catholic hater because of my frequent posts on Catholic-related threads, that could not be farther from the truth. I try to speak in love as Christ would have His disciples do. Salvation is not directly linked to a denominational label, but specifically and ONLY in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not in our works (that none may boast/brag). Not in any other. The desire of God’s heart is that none should perish, but all would come to eternal life. Those of us who truly believe the Word of God, also have such a desire. Anything that teaches “another Gospel” is clearly warned about in God’s Word.

For it is by Grace you are saved, not of yourselves (nothing you can do for yourself), it is a Gift of God, that none may boast.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. That whosoever believes on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


14 posted on 03/10/2010 8:39:08 AM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman; Cronos
There is still enough of history that the Catholic Church wasn’t able to completely destroy, burn, conceal, or re-write if one simply is willing to be open to the possibility that the truth is out there.

Talk about begged questions.
15 posted on 03/10/2010 8:42:19 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
But I did say the Church spread via the sword. Remember the whole “Holy Roman Empire”? When the Catholic Church became one with the “government”, imperialism was used (and the sword/stake/etc) to “keep” the “faith”.

I know the Holy Roman Empire -- that came about only in the 7th century. By that time, the Church had converted Celts, Romans, Britons and many Germanics peacefully with no sword. The Franks themselves (who became the Holy Roman EMpire) were converted in peace. Charlemagne forcibly acted against the Saxons, yes and converted them, but this was political on HIS part.

The Anglo-Saxons converted peacefully as did the Vikings and the Scandanavians and the Slavs from the Poles to the Russians to the Bulgarians.--> The Church did NOT spread due to the sword, if you say that you haven't heard of the martyrs who died at the hands of the Romans, Germanics, Vikings etc.

"Fox's book of Martyrs" is highly fictionalized. And it is one-sided, not mentioning the persecution of Catholics in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland under the Anglicans and not mentioning the persecution of Catholics in Switzerland (did you know that hte urban Calvinist cantons attacked the CAtholic forest cantons to force them to Calvinism?) or in Germany and Scandanavia where Catholics were persecuted. There was evil done on both sides, not just one

You're not a Catholic hater from the posts that I've read, but are misled about the historical bits (e.g. 1 The Church was not spread via the sword, except for the case of the Saxons (not even the Anglo-Saxons, just the saxons in Frisia and Saxony), the rest were converted peacefully and 2. Foxe's is one-sided at best, fictionalised at worst)
16 posted on 03/10/2010 8:49:39 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

“There is still enough of history that the Catholic Church wasn’t able to completely destroy, burn, conceal, or re-write if one simply is willing to be open to the possibility that the truth is out there.” —> Ahem, like which, might I ask? Foxes book? Or “The Key” by the Paulicians? Or the Gospel of Thomas by the Gnostics?


17 posted on 03/10/2010 8:51:18 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Does no one view it as the metaphor of Yah'shua as the living word of G-d.

To read, ingest and be nourished by the Word of G-d.

John 6:4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.
Does the Bread and Wine of the Passover have no meaning ?

I guess not as the Roman "church" rejects Yah'shua's Commanded Feasts.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

18 posted on 03/10/2010 8:59:55 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
Does no one view it as the metaphor of Yah'shua as the living word of G-d.

Yup, that's Church teaching. You've been reading your Catechism, good.
19 posted on 03/10/2010 9:12:35 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
In what way are you confused? Are you not believing the words of Christ? **Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended. **

OK, let's take these passages absolutely literally. Doing so, you come to the inescapable conclusion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood are acts that are both necessary and sufficient for salvation.

Comments?
20 posted on 03/10/2010 9:50:04 AM PST by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
U-2012>Does no one view it as the metaphor of Yah'shua as the living word of G-d.

Yup, that's Church teaching. You've been reading your Catechism, good.

Then tell me why the Roman "church"
doesn't have more Bible study groups
and less magic shows?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
21 posted on 03/10/2010 9:58:56 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

from corinthians 11:
“23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
so if we do not DISCERN the Lord’s Body, what? paul is clearly stating the CHurch’s position. Why did many early Christians die because the they were accused of being “cannibals”, ie, eating the body and blood of Jesus?
from the Old testament: “ Exodus 12
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
2. This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
3. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
4. And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
6. And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
7. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
8. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
9. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
10. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
11. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’s passover.
12. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
13. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.”
IF the israels did not eat the sacrificed lamb, they suffered death.
WHy did John the baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God?
why was the last supper on the passover?


22 posted on 03/10/2010 5:50:21 PM PST by haole (John 10 30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
I don't know of any "magic shows" held by The Catholic Church -- perhaps this "Roman church" you refer to is the one you attend? Because it certainly doesn't describe The Church, the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Do you guys gather around and do magic shows often? Can we come and watch?

Why don't you praise Jesus Christ more and actually read the bible like the Catholic Church?

Come, be saved and know the fullness of Christ in Christ's Church -- leave your pastor or guru behind and accept Christ in Christ's Church
23 posted on 03/10/2010 7:57:44 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

Just posting from the site. Are you saying that you don’t agree with the apologetics here?

They are definitely a Catholic viewpoint, so I might see that.


24 posted on 03/10/2010 11:54:26 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I don't know of any "magic shows" held by The Catholic Church -- perhaps this "Roman church" you refer to is the one you attend? Because it certainly doesn't describe The Church, the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Do you guys gather around and do magic shows often? Can we come and watch?

Why don't you praise Jesus Christ more and actually read the bible like the Catholic Church?

Come, be saved and know the fullness of Christ in Christ's Church -- leave your pastor or guru behind and accept Christ in Christ's Church

The Catholic Church of today is the direct descendant of the Roman "church"
created at Nicea by the anti-semitic Pagans led by Constantine.

The Roman "church" rejected the YHvH commanded Feasts in His Holy Word
( Shabbat, Passover and the other six commanded Feast Days )
and replaced them with Pagan feasts. e.g. Sunday, Easter and Christmas.

Later they instituted the Magic show to claim to change
the wine and matzoh of Passover into the body and blood of the Living G-d.

You are free to follow the false shepherds of the Roman "church".
However you might want to consider following the ONE YHvH
found in the Holy Word of G-d. The creator of the universe.

It is your choice.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
25 posted on 03/11/2010 8:59:16 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
Actually no, there was no church created at Nicea by +Constantine -- haven't you read the books? Constantine called for a convention of Elders and bishops of the existing Church which he removed from being outlawed. He didn't create anything --> unlike your groups or other groups, The CHurch is not man-made

Ha Ha! You think that Pascha/Wielkanoc is pagan? Parlez-vous Francais? Mowicz po polsku? Or only English?

Na, no magic shows, sadly -- we leave that to televangelists and others who use magic incantantations -- the Eucharist is what Jesus Christ instituted -- you know, we Christians consider Christ God -- I don't know about your group

You are free to follow your pastors or a flawed interpretation of scripture, but you should really come to Christ, be saved in Christ's Church and follow Christ and accept Christ in christ' Church as your God, not your pastor or your own interpretation
26 posted on 03/11/2010 10:13:22 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

You are free to follow your pastors or a flawed interpretation of scripture, but you should really come to Christ, be saved in Christ’s Church and follow Christ and accept Christ in christ’ Church as your God, not your pastor or your own interpretation.

No church can save anyone, only by accepting the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary, repenting of your sins, and be baptized can one be saved. However, do not mistake being baptized as necessary for salvation. It is an outward expression of an inward work. Do you not follow the pope, bishops and priests interpretation of the Bible? Yet, you want to say that Protestants follow their pastor’s teachings.

Let me repeat - no institution, or rituals can save anyone. One doesn’t have to be inside a building to be saved, nor affiliated with any group. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, drawing mankind to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.


27 posted on 03/11/2010 10:31:51 AM PST by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Salvation wrote:

“Just posting from the site. Are you saying that you don’t agree with the apologetics here?

They are definitely a Catholic viewpoint, so I might see that.”

Yes, I am saying that I don’t agree with them. The way this thread is presented is that John 6:25-69 is simply a long prooftext for the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. That is not a credible conclusion.

That it has something to say regarding how we are to understand the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper I would not deny. But this is an inherently difficult text to press into use for such a purpose. On the one hand, somewhat in favor of your borrowed assertion, is that the Gospel according to St. John was written after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as well as Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and a considerable time after the earthly ministry of Christ. If the church had taken Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of Me” seriously, which would certainly have been true, then the Supper was being practiced regularly in the time John wrote his Gospel. It is in the background, but only in the background.

On the other hand, John is reporting on words of Jesus spoken many months before He instituted the Supper, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. So, we can hardly assume that He was commenting directly and explicitly on something that He had not yet revealed, instituted, and commanded.

More profitable for both our understanding and our honoring of the Lord of the church would be to determine from the words John wrote what precisely was at issue between Jesus and those who were having such trouble grasping His teaching. I doubt the point at issue between Jesus and the people of the Sea of Galilee environs was the presence of Christ in the as yet unknown Lord’s Supper. Do you see my point? And it is one that has a lot to do with one’s hermeneutical principles, and thus in keeping with the thread’s stated purpose.


28 posted on 03/11/2010 4:04:43 PM PST by Belteshazzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. This passage from John presents the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in words written by John — as he witnessed it at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday.


29 posted on 03/11/2010 4:48:09 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Salvation wrote:

“I guess we will have to agree to disagree. This passage from John presents the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in words written by John — as he witnessed it at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday.”

... even though he nowhere says that in the verses cited.

In other words, you are not going to respond to the point I made about Jesus’ audience and the real time context of what He is saying, just ignore it. This is a strange kind of apologetics you practice. In fact, how can you call it apologetics?


30 posted on 03/11/2010 5:51:57 PM PST by Belteshazzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Nope we follow The Church as a whole's tradition and interpretation of the Bible -- the stock of wisdom of 2000 years of billions of Christians reading the bible.

We do not follow some individual's interpretation of The Bible

Being baptised is one of the sacraments -- just like Mark's opening scene of Christ being baptised is a pivotal point in Christ's life -- you cannot call it anything BUT important unless you deny Christ's words and deeds

No institution saves you, but institutions outside The CHurch with their heretical teachings can lead you on the road to damnation -- like Mormons, etc.

The Church of Christ maintains the teachings of Christ and His Apostles for 2000 years. Think of it -- we've had persecutions, heresies, sinful popes, evil priests, etc and still have remained true for 2000 years. It's not due to any man that we have remained but it is due to God's grace alone and to Christ's words that HE would protect His CHurch

In opposition, every heresy has seemed so powerful -- the Marcionites seemed incredibly powerful as did the Gnostics while the Manicheans were spreading like wildfire as were the Montanists. But they died.

The Arians had political power as they had converted the Germanics to their view before the Germanics came to orthodox lands in the Roman Empire. But Arianism died.

Ditto for every heresy -- and as the article in the Wall Street Journal The Beginning of the Reformation's End? "If we look at histories, heresies run themselves out after about 500 years. I believe we are seeing the last gasp of the Reformation in the mainline Protestant groups."

Ditto for all of the other groups that came after that first gen.
31 posted on 03/11/2010 7:59:47 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson