Yeah....I know the reason...
Posted on 02/19/2017 5:01:22 AM PST by metmom
Only a fool would say that Jesus lied about the flesh not helping at all and would insist that it does when Jesus Himself said it doesn’t.
He knows flesh doesn’t do anything and He came right out and said so.
Spiritual life is given through the Holy Spirit who regenerates the person who believes.
That’s the ONLY way for the spirit to be reborn is through spiritual means.
Physical actions and activities do NOT impart spiritual life.
You can bloviate all day, but you haven’t provided any logical rational or spiritual reason for your heretical opinion to the words of Jesus:
“****54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Peace be with you.
Ignatius
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110])
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1 [A.D. 110])
Nope...Jesus want you to come to him (repent) and then he will help you turn your life around...
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Yeah....I know the reason...
Yes, if you have Faith and Believe in Jesus, you believe all that He tells you. He is the Truth and does not lie or commit evil.
We do not have Faith if we pick and chose what we believe in the Truth of God. We do not interpret the way that is convenient.
Peter denied Christ three times, even after Christ forewarned him. Peter had great Faith and died on the cross for Christ.
Jesus is Lord, and though He permits His enemies time to repent, their days are ultimately numbered—evil cannot last.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.b John 3:36
Peace.
Then tell me why you left the Catholic Church.
That one sentence explains the whole problem. Jesus formed His called-out assembly, His body IS composed of all believers in Christ from ALL nations, tongues and peoples. It's NOT "your" church organization based in Rome that so conveniently co-opted the name "catholic" (i.e., universal) church. The Apostle Peter said it was a SPIRITUAL house/temple of which all believers are living stones that form its construct. Jesus' commission was for ALL Christians to go forth and spread the good news of the grace of God who gifts to us eternal life through faith. The mission - OUR mission - is to be examples, lights upon a hill, to the world so that all who hear the voice of the Shepherd come to Him. And, my FRiend, that is NOT a difficult task at all! Christ knows His own.
Why do you misquote the Bible?
Do you really not see how you have changed the meaning of HIS teaching?
As always, in order to understand the quote, the context must be considered. Who are “they?” Why do they not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ? And what does Ignatius mean by “Eucharist and prayer?”
Who was Ignatius referring to? Prior to making the above statement, Ignatius identified the heretics in a couple of different places. “He [Jesus] suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians.” (ibid, Chapter 2) And, “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.” (ibid, Chapter 5)
The they Ignatius was talking about are Dosetists (Greek: dokesis). The word means, “to seem.” Docetism claimed that Christ did not exist in human form. And, as Ignatius points out, they claim He only seemed to suffer, to which Ignatius replied, “They only seem to be Christians.” They do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ because they didn’t believe he truly suffered. And the Eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” In other words, the Eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord. Ignatius goes on to say this:
It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius. They attempt to make it look as though the Docetists objected to the Eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ. That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice is what the Eucharist is all about. It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Docetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the Eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ’s passion.
There is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the Eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ. That is merely assumed by those who already believe it. We should also keep in mind that Ignatius was about to be martyred, and this letter to the Smyrnaeans was written to exhort the church to keep the unity in truth, obeying the Gospel of Christ, and to be aware of heresies like Docetism. If there had been anything like the sacrifice of the mass or Eucharistic adoration existing during that time, Ignatius would have certainly included something about it in this letter.
In his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius wrote, “If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. Take ye heed, then, to have but one eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood.” (Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapters 3 and 4) There is only one sacrifice for sin, one flesh of Christ, and one altar in heaven, and one truth which is in Jesus Christ. He exhorted the Philadelphians to come together to give thanks and praise, to celebrate the passion of Christ in unity and love. This exhortation is echoed in His letter to the Ephesians where he said,
Notice, he didn’t exhort them to come together to participate in offering up Christ in an un-bloody sacrifice.
Most of Ignatius’ letters were exhortations to peace, unity, and vigilance, but his letter to the Romans was quite different. The thing that troubled Ignatius most was the potential hindrance of his martyrdom by the Christians in Rome. Ignatius wanted to make clear to the church in Rome his desire to be martyred. Fortunately for us, doing so provided opportunity for him to expound a bit on his understanding of the bread of Christ.
Ignatius identifies himself as wheat and bread of God. This comes from the biblical understanding of the Eucharist celebration. The Apostle Paul said, “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1Cor. 10:17) That bread representing not only the body of Christ that was broken for us, but also our oneness with him. And, the Lord promises we too will suffer persecution because if we are one with Him, the world will hate us as it does Him. A better explanation is found in the words of Irenaeus who referenced Ignatius’ words:
By calling himself the wheat of Christ and the pure bread of heaven, Ignatius identifies himself to be in union with Christ’s passion. And this is what Ignatius wanted more than anything, to partake of the bread of God; that is, to be martyred for his faith and live forever more with Christ. He eloquently explained to the church in Rome that he desired the ultimate prize: eternal life made possible by the flesh and blood of Christ.
Ignatius speaks of the Spirit of God within him (there is within me a water) beckoning him to come. He had no delight in corruptible food such as earthly bread, but rather the living bread come down from heaven, namely, the flesh of Christ that was sacrificed for the sins of the world. And for drink he desired not corruptible wine, but the incorruptible blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. Ignatius was about to encounter his Lord face to face!
Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous. It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda. Unfortunately it will continue to be the case. But for those who truly desire truth and are willing to take the time, the agendas of some will not prevail over truth. https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Here Jesus says believes on Him has eternal life and yet you claim that you have to eat.
And Jesus says the flesh is no help at all, it's the Spirit who gives life.
Why don't you believe Him that the flesh is meaningless?
It can't be both. It's either life through the flesh like you claim or the flesh doesn't do or mean anything.
Which is it?
Your problem with reconciling those verses is the demand to take selected portions of John 6 literally and others not. But that is not good hermeneutics. One has to be consistent in how they interpret a passage. Either it's literal, and all of it is, or it's figurative.
The problem Catholics have it that by demanding it be literal, they have to switch between literal and figurative, sometimes in the middle of sentences. It also conflicts with the rest of divine revelation.
By recognizing that the eating is figurative, there is no conflict with the rest of Scripture, it doesn't tie one into knots trying to interpret the passage or sentences within the passage, and it is consistent with the rest of Jesus' teachings.
So if eating is so critical to salvation, then why does the Catholic church prohibit remarried couples from partaking? It is then essentially, sending them to hell but refusing to give them what it takes to they claim have eternal life.
Then again, I've noticed that the Catholic church has no problem consigning people to hell for not falling in line with it.
No kidding.
We’ve been here showing him verses from Scripture over and over again.
yours is the only explanation for that claim.
Again your personal opinion without any history or authority.
Jesus founded His Catholic Church with Peter and his successors that was based early on in Rome. History certainly supports this, while your personal opinion lacks any substantiation. There have been many heresies, but God has stayed with the Catholic church while others have faltered or disappeared.
Tell me which heretical church you attend or define your basic beliefs. I think many so-called christian churches (30,000) pick and choose their doctrines. Many disagree with what Jesus and the Apostles taught . Compare your doctrines against those of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doctrines and catechism stands in agreement with the Bible and Sacred tradition. Does yours?
Certainly all validly baptized persons are members of the Body of Christ. Many are lost sheep including Catholics.
Many say they believe in Christ, yet reject many of His teachings.
Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry Newman did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
He looked at Christian beliefs through the ages. Starting with the nineteenth century (he was writing in 1844), he worked backward century by century, seeing if Catholic beliefs existing at any particular time could be traced to beliefs existing a century before. Back and back he went, until he got to New Testament times. What he demonstrated is that there is a real continuity of beliefs, that the Catholic Church has existed from day one of Church history, that it is in fact the Church established by Christ.
Newman was not a Catholic when he started the book, but his research convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith, and as the book was finished he converted. Fundamentalist leaders make no effort to trace their version of Christianity century by century. They claim the Christianity existing in New Testament times was like today’s Protestant Fundamentalism in all essentials.
That opened my eyes to the truth of the REAL Gospel - that I can know I have eternal life and will never perish when I place my trust in Jesus Christ. No one told me to leave Catholicism, but I knew in my heart that to keep going back would be living a lie. Later on, I started attending a Southern Baptist church and then an Evangelical church after that. I learned more about God and Scripture in a few years than I had for the sixteen I had spent in Catholicism. I determined that I needed to learn more about the faith and I worked my way through Bible college. Now, forty some years later, I know that I made the right decision. Assurance of salvation - justification by grace through faith and not works - are some of the major reasons.
Now, I know this is probably more than you wanted to know and more than likely you will try to tell me why I am wrong. But there is nothing you can say that will draw me back into the abyss of the corrupted gospel of Catholicism. It always puzzles me when Catholics try to belittle or condemn non-Catholic Christians when so many of us are living more holy lives closer to Christ than we ever experienced as Catholics. Your OWN Catechism states that genuine Christians exist outside of the Catholic church but the way some here respond, it's like they don't believe it. I will defend my faith whenever I am asked of the reason for the hope that is within me and I will try to always do it with gentleness and respect. The Shepherd knows His own and we hear His voice and the hireling we will NOT follow.
This so-called authority you say is imbued within the Roman Catholic church is not proof since it is a claim the RCC makes for itself along with claiming her Popes are infallible. The called-out assembly of the believers in Christ are not in authority OVER God's holy word but are in subjection to it. You claimed your church wrote the Bible and decided which books were included in the canon of Scripture but that presumes an authority above Scripture as if the writings of holy men of God who were moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit awaited to be approved rather than being handed down by the Apostles and OBEYED.
Now, you can certainly believe everything you have been saying here but, by the same token, we have the right to reject your words just as you reject ours - EVEN when Scripture has been posted contradicting you. I will choose to believe and obey God rather than man.
That Grace toward us is based on believing His Promise. It is not something you can chew and swallow and chase down with wine. HIS Grace is toward thosew who believe in Whom God has sent for their salvation ... and ONLY GOD can impart HIS Grace, you cannot imbibe it or strive for it through works and rituals.
As I offered to you, Jesus showed Nicodemus how simple is Salvation found. He even illustrated that simple TRUTH by calling Nic's attention to the act of faith in God's Promise, as acted out in the brass snake episode when Moses was leading the Israelites through the desert.
You really do not know The Gospel of Grace, as evidence by your constant reverting to deeds and rituals and works, in order to 'srive for salvation'! The natural (striving man, working for salvation) cannot know the deep truths of God because they are spiritually discerned AFTER being born from above.
What is important to stress here is that the hearers who thought that Jesus meant that He wanted other humans to literally eat His flesh and to literally His blood, they rejected that concept in that it was nauseating to them and contrary to Biblical ordinances, and ceased to be taught by Him.
On the other hand, those who remained where the ones who by His training and personal guidance discerned that His words were aimed inviting others to come to Him in fellowship and to commit trust in His teaching. They where the ones that knew that no one else could quench their yearning for spiritual nourishment, and in their time with Him never had to actually ingest any part of His material body. What they wanted was union with His Spirit, to imbibe His absolute everlasting life and unfailing counsel.
And that is what they received, without any voodoo about transubstantiation, on the morning of one unique Pentecostal gathering. And so have we who have experienced and know the gift new life, of His indwelling Spirit, and His endless Love
You may be able to deceive yourself and others, but you can not deceive Jesus.
You are free to believe what you want, but the Truth is the Truth.
You might want to reconsider before you tell the Lord that His words are not the Truth. He knows that there are non believers.
I wish you well and I hope it works for you.
I can’t speak for others, but I hope that all Catholics want all believers to have the opportunity to share Heaven with God after they die.
I do feel that some of your beliefs are not based on the word of God, but I will leave that between you and God.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
You are always welcome back to the Catholic Church.
Peace be with you.
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.