This Sunday the Gospel reading at mass concludes the Bread of Life Discourse. But since those verses were already discussed in last Sunday's thread, I will instead focus on the first reading from the Old Testament, which is Jos 24:1-2a, 15-17, 18b, but also point out parallels between John 6 and this Old Testament reading. In these verses from the end of the book of Joshua, the people of the Lord are asked to decide to serve the Lord, similar to how Jesus asks the twelve "do you also want to go?" This time it is an aging Joshua who gives his final instructions to the Israelites before he dies. Joshua anticipates the kind of temptations that lay ahead and how to avoid them. And they all agree and say they will serve the Lord. But as we know, Israel did not always serve the Lord after this. There were several times in her history the Lord needed to punish their unfaithfulness. Nevertheless their proclamation of their intention to serve the Lord was given well. This teaches us that no matter how good our intentions, we too can fail miserably at serving the Lord. Yet we must continue to try, for as Peter said "To whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life". And still Peter failed after making that bold proclamation by denying Jesus three times.
Readings for August 22nd
- Thread starter LifeIn
- Start date
PeanutGallery
Well-known member
The OT held on to idols, much like RCC.
Joshua 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
Amos 5:21+
I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
The scriptures show your host is not the real body and blood.
2 sam 6:7
The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.
So all you have proved with the quotes from these readings is that your institution twists scripture and does not know the difference between literal and symbolic. Just because you do the sacrifice does not mean it is acceptable to God. God will not accept anything from evil men. That is what Amos is saying.
I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
The scriptures show your host is not the real body and blood.
2 sam 6:7
The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.
So all you have proved with the quotes from these readings is that your institution twists scripture and does not know the difference between literal and symbolic. Just because you do the sacrifice does not mean it is acceptable to God. God will not accept anything from evil men. That is what Amos is saying.
One more word about today's Gospel - Last week we saw how St. John used the common Greek word, esthio, when Jesus spoke of eating. This week, he switches to the word, trogo, which means to gnaw or chew. It’s a word more appropriate for eating something like steak (or flesh) than it is for bread. And it is certainly not appropriate for a purely symbolic interpretation of "eat my flesh" as "receive me by believing in me". John would never use gnaw or chew to describe that. Why does John switch to this more descriptive verbiage in his recounting of the bread of life discourse? It is because he is emphasizing the literal reality of "eat my flesh".
How did Jesus 'give His flesh' for the life of the world? Hint: it has nothing to do with the Lord's supper.
That is exactly the question that caused some of the disciples to return to their former way of life. "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" The fact that you are troubled by the same thing that troubled them speaks volumes.
leonard03782
Well-known member
Are you the pope or a member of the magisterium? If not, by what authority do you come here and offer your own interpretations of the scriptures? Outside of your own say so, can you offer any proof that this was actually preached in your church?
So you can't answer the question?
The fact that you feel the need to lie about what was said speaks volumes....never said I was troubled by it, nor even implied it.....but that you used that idiocy to deflect from answering my question does speak volumes.
babies don't have teeth to chew the meat of His word. if you don't have the milk of it you won't undertand the meat of it. catholics don't have the milk it. 1 cor 3
Which part of my post that you quoted was in error? Or do you just object to a Catholic commenting on scripture in general?
I have answered that question many times before. If you cannot accept my answer that is your problem, not mine.
You really think that John used trogo to mean chew the meat of his word? That would be odd considering that everywhere else in John 6 he was talking about bread. You know, once you make up your mind that a verse is symbolic, you can invent all sorts of symbolic interpretations of that verse, as you just did here, going to great lengths to try to connect trogo with His word. Such imagination is needed for fiction writing, but is not useful in reading scripture.
The whole of the last supper is a symbolic meal called Passover. It is not the literal Passover, the meal is symbolic with loads of symbolism in it. Jesus is not going to tell the apostles to break His commandment not to eat flesh or drink blood. It is symbolic like the whole meal.
Then link it, otherwise, you can't answer it.
You gave no answer....and here you are, empty handed again.
That's what the disciples thought going in. But surprised them by making it into the fulfillment of what he has said exactly one year earlier, as reported in John 6.
You can imagine your own symbolism, or you can listen to the words of Jesus.
Now you are telling Jesus what he can and cannot do? That is some hutzpah!
Oh rubbish. I do listen to Jesus' words and His words like in John are symbolic. I am not telling Jesus what He can and can not do. Jesus does not break His own commandments. You have some hutzpah thinking He would say one thing and do another, Jesus is not RC therefore:
Matt 5:37
All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
or in another translation
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
The problem with the RCC is this is another verse they ignore. They say one thing and do another.
Or to put it another way Jesus tells His followers/believers what to do and He does not change what he tells us to do.
Matt 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So the commandment not to human flesh or drink blood have not changed, Jesus would not tell us to break it. The NT repeats
Acts 15:29
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
Last edited:
leonard03782
Well-known member
The problem is that your religion that only the pope and magisterium are qualified to interpret the Scriptures according to the ccc. That means that what you have to say about it means absolutely nothing.
dingoling.
Well-known member
How can the OT hold on to idols? The covenant the God made with his people involves idols??
Twisting again.
Chapter 51. Homeopathic Magic of a Flesh Diet.
It is now easy to understand why a savage should desire to partake of the flesh of an animal or man whom he regards as divine. By eating the body of the god he shares in the god’s attributes and powers. And when the god is a corn-god, the corn is his proper body; when he is a vine-god, the juice of the grape is his blood; and so by eating the bread and drinking the wine the worshipper partakes of the real body and blood of his god. Thus the drinking of wine in the rites of a vine-god like Dionysus is not an act of revelry, it is a solemn sacrament. Yet a time comes when reasonable men find it hard to understand how any one in his senses can suppose that by eating bread or drinking wine he consumes the body or blood of a deity. “When we call corn Ceres and wine Bacchus,” says Cicero, “we use a common figure of speech; but do you imagine that anybody is so insane as to believe that the thing he feeds upon is a god?”HMMMMM that sounds familiar.
It may be well to illustrate by instances this common faith in the acquisition of virtues or vices of many kinds through the medium of animal food, even when there is no pretence that the viands consist of the body or blood of a god. The doctrine forms part of the widely ramified system of sympathetic or homoeopathic magic.
Hookus-Pookus-Flippy-ity--Flam
it a God
I know this is well over the heads of most posters
but
Ex.32
Aaron strips them of their
Egyptian "Earrings"
and out Pops a Golden Calf
when they wear the Earrings placed on their ears by those that speak for the Gods of Egypt
all they have "Ears to Hear" is the voice of those that speak for the Egyptian Gods
Hookus-Pookus-Flippy-ity--Flam
it a God
I know this is well over the heads of most posters
but
Ex.32
Aaron strips them of their
Egyptian "Earrings"and out Pops a Golden Calf
when they wear the Earrings placed on their ears by those that speak for the Gods of Egypt
all they have "Ears to Hear" is the voice of those that speak for the Egyptian Gods
Last edited: