Posted on 04/01/2015 8:27:38 AM PDT by RnMomof7
ping
Do you even think the so-called early church "father" (which they were not: Eph. 2:20) were wholly inspired of God? No, nor is it certain any were disciples of Christ, even the two usually mentioned, while aberrant disciples were foretold. Nor were they certain or uniform in all they taught (despite claims of the unanimous consent of the fathers), but what is certain is that some of what is expressed contradicted Scripture.
And even Jerome abused Scripture by teaching such things as that based upon the days of creation then even numbered days signified uncleanness, and thus the marriage compact. ( St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 Chapter 7,13,16,33 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)
And in his loathing of sexual relations even made Job 40:16, which speaks of the strength of hippopotamus being in his loins and the navel of his belly, to refer to the devil's strength being in the reproductive organs in his assaults on men and women! (Letter from Jerome to Eustochium (383-384); http://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/letter/447.html)
Likewise Augustine made taught that marital relations "cannot be effected without the ardour of lust," which is the daughter sin, Heb. 13:4 notwithstanding, and thus is why Original Sin is passed on, but which is "no longer accounted sin in the regenerate." (On Marriage and Concupiscence: Book I, cp. 27; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Nor have i been impressed with any of the writings of such ancients that I have read, as they have stood in clear contrast to that of Scripture in both content and clarity, and also inferior to that of classic evangelical commentaries, such as Matthew Henry and Keil & Delitzsch.
And these and popes clearly are contrary to Scripture, as the NT church manifestly did not teach a perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, as is her separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" human flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, and literally consuming this to obtain spiritual life, around which act all else revolves, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome, and a separate class of believers distinctively titled "saints," and praying to created being in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.
John 6
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jesus tried in every way to explain to them that believing in him was eternal life but they did not believe because their minds were on their belly rather than the spirit.
So he then explained it in a way they should have been able to understand.
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.
Jesus gave his literal flesh at the cross.
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.
The words Jesus spoke was the flesh and the blood which he was speaking of which contains eternal life.
It’s amazing to me that so many want to rely on “early church fathers” when we know that error was already creeping into the churches while the apostles were still alive. Paul even had to scold Peter for weakened resolve when with Jews. We also know that 6 of the 7 churches addressed in Revelation had already become rife with error and at risk of being rejected by Christ. Who in their right mind would put their faith in what anyone but the apostles taught?
“Call no one father”.
I thank you
To God be the glory
Such strange gymnastics: as if the author were deliberately contorting away from the truth, unable to bear it.
Christ commands us to eat His Body and Blood. His words are unmistakeable.
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.
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 you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Christ literally gives Himself to us as real food and real drink. There's nothing to misinterpret here. There's no room for manoeuvre.
Moreover: when we consider the language used in the Gospel of John the literal interpretation becomes undeniable.
In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, 'eating.' . As in 'Sarcophagus'.
However after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christs flesh, His language intensifies, as does John's translation of it.
In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning 'to chew on' or to 'gnaw on'as when an animal is ripping apart its prey. The text is perhaps closer to:
Whoever gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
If anything more needed to be said: St Paul is also abundantly clear:
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lords body.
All this: not to mention Christ's institution of what we now call the Eucharist at the Last Supper.
From Luke:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.
I quote these two passages to show that Christ's Body and Blood were eaten and drunk in the very early Church, as they have been right up to the present day.
We are entering into the Pascal mystery: tomorrow is Maundy Thursday - the feast of the Last Supper. I suspect that you intend to spam-attack Christ's Body and Blood over the whole of Easter.
If I'm right, another attack thread exactly like this one will be along soon. See you all on that.
Notice that those that knew Him understood what He was actually saying
John 6: 67So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" 68Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69"We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."
Peter did not say give us some of that bread did he?
Bkmk
“error was already creeping into the churches”
So Jesus wasn’t with His Church for the first 15 centuries, contradicting Matthew 28:20, the Spirit wasn’t leading the Church to ALL truth, contradicting John 16:13, and in sowing error among so many believers for so long, hadn’t the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church, contradicting Matthew 16:18?
I’m glad that all the error is out now that there are 30,000 plus churches and counting, and not one. Now which church, which error-free interpretation of the Bible is this? At least a maze does have one exit.
“You guys are doing a fantastic job of supplying us with context, argument ...”
I disagree. Should I start a new church?
Yesterday it was pointed out that the Eucharist was unleavened bread and couldn’t be a biscuit. Over and over again there are so many errors on here about what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches about the Holy Eucharist from posters and the writers they cite. Again, by error, I’m not talking about belief/disbelief, I’m talking about mistakes about what the Church teaches.
“Man is a being filled with error. Everything deceives him. Without Grace this error is ineffaceable.
-Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), much smarter than any of us
"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
"
Note verse 35 ... Jesus speaks about coming to Him, not eating Him or His flesh or His blood
Then follows;
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
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.
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.
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.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
The passage shows Jesus explaining/argueing that even followers of His couldn't get past the physical bread thing and understand Jesus was talking about spiritual bread
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Not the physical breade like Manna, but the spiritual bread of Jesus
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.
If you're born again (only way to "have" the Spirit within you .. to teach you ... non believers don't hear the Spirit nor obey if they do not believe .. ) ... If you are born again, the Spirit will give you life (quicken(eth) .. ) ... NOT the flesh and blood of Jesus
Have you not read the seven letters to the seven churches found in Revelation? Already six of the seven were in error. That false narrative that the Catholic Church would have you believe is that it and it alone is the “church”. That’s totally false. The fact that it incorporates paganism is evidence alone of that.
BTTT!
Them thar Mormons use WATER...
It was confusing to some Jews; wasn't it!
Paul clarified it later:
Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a part of it.
1 Corinthians 12:27
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.