Didn't see any real answer to this

J

JohnDeVitoOfOld

Well-known member
Discussing John 6, I posted this in response to an article that claimed that Christ never responded to the disciples that left. Perhaps I missed it, but there was no real answer to a refutation of that claim. Jesus did reply, and his reply proved that the objection was not to the "eat my flesh" statements, and they were not the focus of John 6. Context is everything.

JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Looking at the article we see one of the most prevalent, and one of the most misguided arguments for "transubstantiation" that is out there.
Click to expand...
 
JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Discussing John 6, I posted this in response to an article that claimed that Christ never responded to the disciples that left. Perhaps I missed it, but there was no real answer to a refutation of that claim. Jesus did reply, and his reply proved that the objection was not to the "eat my flesh" statements, and they were not the focus of John 6. Context is everything.
Click to expand...
It shows that one must read verses in context to get the complete understanding of what Jesus meant. He is the answer.
 
balshan said:
It shows that one must read verses in context to get the complete understanding of what Jesus meant. He is the answer.
Click to expand...

Considering how prots always get hammered about how we don't understand Scripture I was hoping there would be even an attempt at providing some sort of Scriptural mastery to explain the passage. We hear about how we have to submit to infallible interpretation, and even though we know they haven't defined an awful lot of passages (we hear it from catholics all the time), I was hoping that we'd see something that attempted to take a thorough and intelligent approach to a passage as important as this. This was something I had really studied and really sought to understand (despite the idea that we just reject catholicism out of hand). Working through Matthew and tying in the sequence with John was another big effort to build context with this passage.

And something along the lines of, "We told you so, and Luther is a meanie, so there!" is not a thoughtful reply.
 
JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Considering how prots always get hammered about how we don't understand Scripture I was hoping there would be even an attempt at providing some sort of Scriptural mastery to explain the passage. We hear about how we have to submit to infallible interpretation, and even though we know they haven't defined an awful lot of passages (we hear it from catholics all the time), I was hoping that we'd see something that attempted to take a thorough and intelligent approach to a passage as important as this. This was something I had really studied and really sought to understand (despite the idea that we just reject catholicism out of hand). Working through Matthew and tying in the sequence with John was another big effort to build context with this passage.

And something along the lines of, "We told you so, and Luther is a meanie, so there!" is not a thoughtful reply.
Click to expand...
Oh Luther is their kicking ball, unless they can use him to support a false claim.

They see hate everywhere, if you do not bow down to their false interpretations they cry poor me. They do this to give themselves a reason not to defend their beliefs.

They cannot go against their institution. They must obey the RCC doctrines and the infallible sayings of the pope and his cronies, and of course Mary.

They also do not see that bread and wine are symbolic through the whole of scriptures and it is not about eating God at all.

I, almost forgot, there are those who have said if their institution is proven false they will become atheists etc.
 
JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Discussing John 6, I posted this in response to an article that claimed that Christ never responded to the disciples that left. Perhaps I missed it, but there was no real answer to a refutation of that claim. Jesus did reply, and his reply proved that the objection was not to the "eat my flesh" statements, and they were not the focus of John 6. Context is everything.
Click to expand...
Could you please link to that refutation? I will do by best to respond if I know what refutation you are referring to.

(And by the way, on this issue, Luther was on our side.)
 
JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Discussing John 6, I posted this in response to an article that claimed that Christ never responded to the disciples that left. Perhaps I missed it, but there was no real answer to a refutation of that claim. Jesus did reply, and his reply proved that the objection was not to the "eat my flesh" statements, and they were not the focus of John 6. Context is everything.
Click to expand...

They know they are conning everyone when they claim that Jesus would have corrected anyone and everyone who got Him wrong. They KNOW that is false because they are fully aware of Christ not correcting many others in the Gospels that got Him wrong.

Christ told us why He did not chase the stiff necked down to correct them: because He did not want them to understand.

John 6 is one of those chapters that Catholics give the most lip service to the most, but believe the least.
 
JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Discussing John 6, I posted this in response to an article that claimed that Christ never responded to the disciples that left. Perhaps I missed it, but there was no real answer to a refutation of that claim. Jesus did reply, and his reply proved that the objection was not to the "eat my flesh" statements, and they were not the focus of John 6. Context is everything.
Click to expand...
If Jesus spoke symbolically then no disciple should have left Him. They heard Him speak symbolically before.
 
JohnDeVitoOfOld said:
Discussing John 6, I posted this in response to an article that claimed that Christ never responded to the disciples that left. Perhaps I missed it, but there was no real answer to a refutation of that claim. Jesus did reply, and his reply proved that the objection was not to the "eat my flesh" statements, and they were not the focus of John 6. Context is everything.
Click to expand...
You mean when he says "The flesh profit nothing, the Spirit gives life?"

You think THAT somehow is supposed to refute the Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Here is why it does NOT:

Jesus didn't say that to the people who walked away, he said it to his disciples. In the second place, what Jesus meant when he said "The flesh profit nothing" was simply--that those who left understood his words according to the flesh--that is--without illumination by the Spirit. That is why he said "The Spirit gives life." The Spirit enables flesh to understand and believe Jesus words. Flesh and Spirit are often contrasted in the Gospel of John-- for "flesh" as in "wordily" and "Spirit" as in "God"

If the flesh profit nothing, why did God become flesh to redeem flesh?
 
romishpopishorganist said:
You mean when he says "The flesh profit nothing, the Spirit gives life?"

You think THAT somehow is supposed to refute the Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Here is why it does NOT:

Jesus didn't say that to the people who walked away, he said it to his disciples. In the second place, what Jesus meant when he said "The flesh profit nothing" was simply--that those who left understood his words according to the flesh--that is--without illumination by the Spirit. That is why he said "The Spirit gives life." The Spirit enables flesh to understand and believe Jesus words. Flesh and Spirit are often contrasted in the Gospel of John-- for "flesh" as in "wordily" and "Spirit" as in "God"

If the flesh profit nothing, why did God become flesh to redeem flesh?
Click to expand...
Very symbolic language. Does not support your false beliefs.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Jesus didn't say that to the people who walked away, he said it to his disciples. In the second place, what Jesus meant when he said "The flesh profit nothing" was simply--that those who left understood his words according to the flesh--that is--without illumination by the Spirit. That is why he said "The Spirit gives life." The Spirit enables flesh to understand and believe Jesus words. Flesh and Spirit are often contrasted in the Gospel of John-- for "flesh" as in "wordily" and "Spirit" as in "God"
Click to expand...
Why should we take your personal interpretation of this idea as being correct the interpretation? It is, after all, a fallible interpretation.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
You mean when he says "The flesh profit nothing, the Spirit gives life?"

You think THAT somehow is supposed to refute the Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Here is why it does NOT:

Jesus didn't say that to the people who walked away, he said it to his disciples. In the second place, what Jesus meant when he said "The flesh profit nothing" was simply--that those who left understood his words according to the flesh--that is--without illumination by the Spirit. That is why he said "The Spirit gives life." The Spirit enables flesh to understand and believe Jesus words. Flesh and Spirit are often contrasted in the Gospel of John-- for "flesh" as in "wordily" and "Spirit" as in "God"

If the flesh profit nothing, why did God become flesh to redeem flesh?
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. I have been pusing for a better quality of discussion here, and your reply is illustrative of exactly what I have been railing against.

You quoted something that I never said. Never said it. ANd then you pretend to be Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Now, if you would like to address what I actually said, feel free. But changing the subject and slaying a dragon that I never spoke of is nothing more than avoidance. Along with the fact that nobody answered the post originally, it reveals the fact that a deep examination of Scripture in context is beyond some on this forum.
 
Christ is the Word made flesh, John 1:14. That says it all. Scripture interprets scripture, not the pagan Roman daddies. And in Matthew 4:4 it says we are to live not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from God. The RCs are spiritually blind and cannot comprehend the deeper spiritual meanings of Christ’s teachings and parables.

Having a look at that sun worship graven image that the Roman daddies use during their mystical bread crumbs ritual also speaks volumes of what the deal really is. And yes, the mystical bread crumbs ritual indeed originated in ancient pagan mystery religions, such as Mithraism. Also, over 3,000 years before the Lord Jesus Christ,
pagan Egyptian priests would consecrate cakes which were to become the flesh of the god Osiris and eaten.

I do apologize if my tone comes off a certain way but it just irks me deeply to see my Lord Jesus Christ being mixed in with ancient pagan rituals..and so many people are lost due to this, many many many millions. Narrow is the way and few there be indeed.

Greatest trick the devil ever pulled was not convincing the world he didn’t exist, but convincing many in it that they are worshipping God while actually they are worshipping him, and he will take whatever followers he can amass, even if it is not intentional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top