Posted on 05/24/2019 8:46:15 AM PDT by ebb tide
It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries.
Note that Jesus is not speaking of his own "flesh", which does in fact give life to the world as stated in vs. 51. (see also Eph 2:13-16 and Heb 10:10)
More the other way around.
If you read Scripture, much of Roman Catholic "tradition" disappears from the screen.
Canonically speaking, he is not vulnerable.
Glad to see you come around to that position. I've posted articles from Roman Catholic canon lawyers who've said the same thing.
I've been told they are wrong.
yes so true
The OT was in place. I'm not going to debate the books of the OT.
Paul's letters were completed between 49-66 AD and were already being circulated among the various churches.
Mark was written ~50.
Luke ~60.
Recall that Luke conducted extensive research on his Gospel.
What he did not include is telling and should be a teaching moment.
Matthew ~60s
John 85-90
As early as 66 AD Paul's letters were already considered Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Scripture was identified, and protected, by Tradition.
Yet the NT says otherwise.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB
And as soon as dumping Tradition got into full gear 500 years ago, seven books of the Bible were dropped! By whose authority, I would like to know!
An excellent article too lengthy to post for your reply.
https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/apocryphaintroduction/apocrypha3/
The better question is why did Rome add 7 books at Trent when it declared its canon.
Eventually it was the Holy Spirit --- via inspiration and "calling to mind", remembrance (which is Tradition)
Purely a Roman Catholic conjecture to equate the Spirit and "Tradition".
The ekklesia as moved by the Holy Spirit.
Your presumption is everything Rome is doing today was taught by the Apostles and handed down.
I've not seen you on these threads before, but much of Roman Catholic dogma can be shown to have not originated with the Apostles. Hence it cannot be "handed down" as Rome likes to claim.
There's a reason the early ekklesia put together the Scriptures.
Heresy was making its way into the early church.
Without the original apostles there to refute it, a list of writings was put together/identified, so a permanent record of their teachings would be had.
This way, it could be pointed out what an apostle did or did not say.
Many of the writings Roman Catholicism builds its dogmas on, especially the Marian dogmas, were rejected and considered heretical by various church councils and writers.
When Roman Catholicism put together its official canon at Trent, it did not include a lot of the writings you'd think they would have.
That they didn't is telling.
Which goes against one of the many canons from one of the many councils ignored by Rome.
The problem with your argument is you're wrong.
Jesus identified the OT when He spoke of the Law, the prophets and the PSALMS.
Those did not include the apocrypha.
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Luke 24:44 NASB
If you're gonna hold up the Septuagint then you have to explain why Rome DROPPED some of the books from it.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
I did to, when I was a Catholic. I knew I was heading for hell.
I wasn't not sure about not making it to heaven. I was sure about not going there.
I wasn't a horrible person then (teenaged years) but I knew that I wasn't good enough and could never be good enough. I didn't even see the point of trying any more, which played into my initial decision to stop going to church when I was about 16. I didn't see how it could make things any worse for me since there was no hope anyways.
I believe in faith and works, not "sola fides".
Jesus is pretty clear that works don't contribute to salvation.
Are they part of it? Most certainly. Salvation affects a change of heart towards God that of necessity results in works. If the works are lacking, then one's claim to be a follower of Christ is rightly suspect.
But since the penalty for sin is death, it's a penalty that no amount of works can can pay. Works are the wrong currency to pay the debt we owe God for the sin we've done.
Jesus taught us these, which I am sure you are familiar with as I remember them from my Catholic years.
Jesus tells us that the one who was justified was the one who simply asked for mercy, recognized and confessed his sin and humbled himself before God. No works needed. IOW, he threw himself on the mercy of the court.
Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
And the story about the prodigal son in Luke 15 is really a story about a father's heart for his children.
Again, the son did nothing but become humble before the father. He didn't earn back his position as son as he had not lost that. Sure, he lost the inheritance, all the extras, but he was still part of the family and welcomed as a son. One can get to heaven by the skin of their teeth, so to speak. They won't get any rewards that God promises for faithfulness in certain areas, but they still make it.
God's justice fell on Jesus on the cross and Jesus took the punishment for our sins that we deserve, and then turns around, and offers it freely to us as a gift free for the asking.
That is what it means that Jesus' righteousness is credited to our account. Then when God sees us, He sees Christ's righteousness placed on us. He sees as as righteous as Jesus Himself and wipes out the record of debt of our sin since it has been paid in full.
It was a lot to wrap my mind around as a Catholic. I had never heard of concepts like that and could not believe it was so easy.
But God made it that way so that ANYONE, no matter what age, background, culture, mental ability, physical ability, economic level, or educational level could understand it and apprehend it.
God WANTS to save us.
Jesus never had anything good to say about tradition.
For the most part, He condemned it as nullifying the Word of God.
Relying on God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture is a better deal.
It's God's very own words to us.
Some people went further...our good FRiend Mrs. Don-O said she started writing her local bishop.
Then write your clergy and tell them that.
I think you're right that they need to hear from people. Withholding money is not effective if they don't know WHY.
It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries.
Note that Jesus is not speaking of his own "flesh", which does in fact give life to the world as stated in vs. 51. (see also Eph 2:13-16 and Heb 10:10)
On the contrary, the Greek word for *flesh* that Jesus uses in vs 63 is the EXACT same ford for *flesh * that He uses in vs 51.
In vs 35 Jesus says this.... " “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. " and then goes on to say the same thing about eating the BREAD of heaven, which is His flesh.
So which is it? Believing or eating?
Eph 2 has nothing to do with communion. Nor does Heb 10:10.
Physical activity does not force spiritual reality to happen.
Physical reality can be used to describe or explain spiritual truths, but does not effect them.
You know what God really wants? Just to be believed when He says something.
That's what faith is. And that pleases Him to be trusted.
I consider it a great honor to be taken at my word. It shows that the person has confidence in my integrity, that I'll do what I said I would.
I am trying to stir up others to do the same. I would like to an inciter of my fellow catechists. Of all laypeople, catechists probably have the most knowledge and credibility about the way things are spozed to be.
Maybe we should call ourselves "Catholics for Catholicism."
Ecclesia semper reformanda.
Great, now that you've acknowledged that the bread of the Eucharist IS the flesh of Christ, we're making progress.
In vs 35 Jesus says this.... " “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. " and then goes on to say the same thing about eating the BREAD of heaven, which is His flesh.
So which is it? Believing or eating?
It is BOTH, which is the point made throughout John 6.
Why do you ignore the clear words of Christ?
John 52-56
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
And when the Jews protested, Christ made clear that he meant exactly what they objected to.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? So, Yes: "You know what God really wants? Just to be believed when He says something.
That's what faith is. And that pleases Him to be trusted."
Call no man Father. How about starting with that?
That aside, Jesus says....
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Why don't you take that literally? That way you are not violating all the other clear commands of God to not eat the blood and there's no contradiction with the rest of the body of revealed Scripture and you don't have to go through all kinds of semantic gymnastics to explain how Jesus could have changed the Law BEFORE He fulfilled it, which BTW, He said He did not come to do.
Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now, if you want to play literal with these verses, you have to be consistent in the entire passage.
Jesus said whoever comes to Him will never go hungry nor will they be thirsty.
I'm willing to bet you had three meals today and that you get hungry and thirsty every day.
If you're going to make 52-56 literal, then the rest has to be literal as well.
So....do you get hungry and thirsty?
It's a simple yes or no answer.
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.