Catholic Problems

[TimelessTheist]

Same phrase, but different passage; different context. The much-lower-than-God "Son of Man" in Jeremiah is not the messianic "Son of Man" of Daniel, for instance. Within the context of John 6, Jesus uses a bread metaphor because the people were fixated on the bread he had just given them miraculously. It's simply acontextual to say that Jesus' "bread of life" comments were about the Eucharistic bread, whether as a physical accident or transubstantiatively and mystically linked to Christ. Jesus explains his own terms in that passage: "eating the bread" means believing in Jesus.

Any proof of this? Because, he said this 'right' after he talked of the Eucharist, using the same terminology. If you want to say he was talking about something different, you have to give us some reason to think so.

[TimelessTheist]

Remember my objection?



"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."-- John 6:54.Well that is how you are interpreting it. But Jesus was speaking in metaphor of coming and believing in Him in that context. Which is somewhat different than metaphor used at the institution of the remembrance of His death. You have been taught to conflate these teachings, have you not?


As you are reading it. Yet Jesus promised the possession of eternal life.
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."-- John 6:54
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." -- John 6:47.
These two teachings are synonymous. Bible believing Christians know they have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 12, 13).

You....seriously aren't saying that just because he uses the word "hath" in both statements, that means he means the same thing? Do you know how common a word "hath" was? Also, as I said, the sacraments aren't the method by which you enter the covenant, the sacraments are the way by which you 'keep' the covenant

[robrecht]

You....seriously aren't saying that just because he uses the word "hath" in both statements, that means he means the same thing? Do you know how common a word "hath" was? Also, as I said, the sacraments aren't the method by which you enter the covenant, the sacraments are the way by which you 'keep' the covenant

I haven't had time to follow this discussion, but will point out that all three words are the same in the Greek text. I do suspect that 'John' is probably alluding to the Eucharist, which I see as a symbolic and faithful participation of the community in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Please note that I did not say only a symbol. I do not know why 'John' does not have the words of institution at the last supper. It's an interesting question, I think.

[37818]

You....seriously aren't saying that just because he uses the word "hath" in both statements, that means he means the same thing? Do you know how common a word "hath" was? Also, as I said, the sacraments aren't the method by which you enter the covenant, the sacraments are the way by which you 'keep' the covenant

That word translated "hath" meaning "possesses," And in the new covenant God does the keeping, not those who enter into it.

". . . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. " -- Hebrews 10:14-17. (ref from Jeremiah 31:33, 34.)

[One Bad Pig]

That word translated "hath" meaning "possesses," And in the new covenant God does the keeping, not those who enter into it.

". . . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. " -- Hebrews 10:14-17. (ref from Jeremiah 31:33, 34.)

*looks at context* Um, no. That's totally not what that passage is saying. It is contrasting Jesus' sacrifice to the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. If your reading were correct, it would make superfluous the following cautions about holding fast to the confession of our hope and avoiding willful sin; the perfect would do that as a matter of course.

[37818]

*looks at context* Um, no. That's totally not what that passage is saying. It is contrasting Jesus' sacrifice to the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. If your reading were correct, it would make superfluous the following cautions about holding fast to the confession of our hope and avoiding willful sin; the perfect would do that as a matter of course.

You are referring to: " . . . Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . . " -- Hebrews 10:23-26.

I understand that meaning to refusing the new covenant. And so not being in it. (see 2 Peter 2: . . . 17-22.)

". . . But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. " -- Hebrews 10:39.

So where as, ". . . I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; . . ." v.16.

So it is, the Apostle wrote, "Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." -- 2 Corinthians 5:17.

And so warns, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, . . . " -- 2 Corinthians 13:5.

And it being written, ". . . Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. " -- Romans 8:9.

"He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. . . . " -- 1 John 5:12.

Now why should I believe less? Which I would have to do to agree with your understanding. The only reason I accept our Savior is because of the real certainty of possessing eternal life and knowing it for sure. Why should I refuse this truth?






"

[37818]

I haven't had time to follow this discussion, but will point out that all three words are the same in the Greek text. I do suspect that 'John' is probably alluding to the Eucharist, which I see as a symbolic and faithful participation of the community in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Please note that I did not say only a symbol. I do not know why 'John' does not have the words of institution at the last supper. It's an interesting question, I think.

The idea that John is alluding to the Eucharist is reading into the text what it is not teaching. It was Jesus' teaching about coming and believing in Him. It was metaphor, ". . . 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 it was literal those plural verbs "to be" would not be need. "God [is] a Spirit" in John 4:24, the verb "to be" which would be translated "is" is not used. But where it says "God is light" and "God is love" these are metaphor and the verb "to be" is used (1 John 1:5; 1 John 4:8). And Peter understood, saying to our Lord, ". . . thou hast the words of eternal life." Those who have not repented from dead works do not.

[One Bad Pig]

You are referring to: " . . . Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, . . . " -- Hebrews 10:23-26.

I understand that meaning to refusing the new covenant. And so not being in it. (see 2 Peter 2: . . . 17-22.)

Your understanding is erroneous. Oh, you're not wholly wrong; it is contrasting the old and new covenant at the end of your quote. Willful sin invalidated one's earlier sacrifice under the old covenant too, but it didn't matter so much because those sacrifices were only temporary to begin with. Willful sin is therefore rather more serious under the new covenant.

". . . But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. " -- Hebrews 10:39.

So where as, ". . . I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; . . ." v.16.

So it is, the Apostle wrote, "Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." -- 2 Corinthians 5:17.

And so warns, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, . . . " -- 2 Corinthians 13:5.

And it being written, ". . . Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. " -- Romans 8:9.

"He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. . . . " -- 1 John 5:12.

We've already had this discussion. Not interested in re-plowing old ground.

Now why should I believe less? Which I would have to do to agree with your understanding.

You'd rather use terrible exegesis to prop up your own understanding than take the text as it stands? That seems to be going about things rather backwards.

The only reason I accept our Savior is because of the real certainty of possessing eternal life and knowing it for sure. Why should I refuse this truth?

Well, I suppose this explains your unwillingness to even consider a different position. It seems to me a rather precarious sort of faith where any moment of doubt could cause the whole facade to crumble, though it appears to be strong. I urge you to carefully reconsider; many fundy atheists come from that sort of viewpoint. Why not follow Christ because He loves us and died and rose again for us?

[robrecht]

The idea that John is alluding to the Eucharist is reading into the text what it is not teaching. It was Jesus' teaching about coming and believing in Him. It was metaphor, ". . . 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 it was literal those plural verbs "to be" would not be need. "God [is] a Spirit" in John 4:24, the verb "to be" which would be translated "is" is not used. But where it says "God is light" and "God is love" these are metaphor and the verb "to be" is used (1 John 1:5; 1 John 4:8). And Peter understood, saying to our Lord, ". . . thou hast the words of eternal life." Those who have not repented from dead works do not.

I only said that I suspect that John is alluding to the Eucharist here. Allusions are tricky things. I certainly do not deny that this is metaphorical or symbolic speech.

[37818]

I only said that I suspect that John is alluding to the Eucharist here. Allusions are tricky things. I certainly do not deny that this is metaphorical or symbolic speech.

Jesus' used the metaphor of eating his flesh and drinking His blood to one's coming and believing in Him. And in the remembrance used the similar figures eating bread for His body and drinking from the cup for His blood which He was to give on the cross. That some churches conflated the two teachings as one, can be understood. To which I disagree. Though I would agree that Jesus' use of similar symbols was deliberate to tie our faith in Him in His death on the cross for us and we being His body on earth by faith (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17. Galatians 3:26, 1 John 5:1). I would not combine those two teachings beyond the simple obvious.

[37818]

Your understanding is erroneous. Oh, you're not wholly wrong; it is contrasting the old and new covenant at the end of your quote. Willful sin invalidated one's earlier sacrifice under the old covenant too, but it didn't matter so much because those sacrifices were only temporary to begin with. Willful sin is therefore rather more serious under the new covenant.

My understanding is Christ died once for all. "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]."-- Hebrews 10:10. compare also Hebrews 6:4-6.

We've already had this discussion. Not interested in re-plowing old ground.
You'd rather use terrible exegesis to prop up your own understanding than take the text as it stands? That seems to be going about things rather backwards.

What do you mean? Please explain. Maybe contrast your thinking of the exegesis versus how you think I'm doing it wrong. Thanks.

Well, I suppose this explains your unwillingness to even consider a different position. It seems to me a rather precarious sort of faith where any moment of doubt could cause the whole facade to crumble, though it appears to be strong. I urge you to carefully reconsider; many fundy atheists come from that sort of viewpoint. Why not follow Christ because He loves us and died and rose again for us?

Atheists do not come from my view point. Show me one atheist, former professing Christian, that knew God personally. There are none. If one knows 2 + 2 is 4 one cannot unknow it. Good exegesis uses clear teachings of the word of God to explain the difficult. Not the other way around.

Jesus tells unbelievers,
". . . But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one." -- John 10:26-30.

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . " -- 1 John 5:1.

[The Remonstrant]

Same phrase, but different passage; different context. The much-lower-than-God "Son of Man" in Jeremiah is not the messianic "Son of Man" of Daniel, for instance. Within the context of John 6, Jesus uses a bread metaphor because the people were fixated on the bread he had just given them miraculously. It's simply acontextual to say that Jesus' "bread of life" comments were about the Eucharistic bread, whether as a physical accident or transubstantiatively and mystically linked to Christ. Jesus explains his own terms in that passage: "eating the bread" means believing in Jesus. [Emphasis added.]

[One Bad Pig]

My understanding is Christ died once for all. "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]."-- Hebrews 10:10. compare also Hebrews 6:4-6.

You've got that part correct.

What do you mean? Please explain. Maybe contrast your thinking of the exegesis versus how you think I'm doing it wrong. Thanks.

See my last couple posts for the general gist of the passage. I honestly don't see how anyone can objectively approach Heb. 10 and think that it's referring to eternal security. It's such an important doctrine to you, however, that you seem to see everything through that lens.

Atheists do not come from my view point. Show me one atheist, former professing Christian, that knew God personally. There are none. If one knows 2 + 2 is 4 one cannot unknow it.

Fundy atheists are typically not really atheists; they're just ticked off at God about something, and reject Him like a spurned lover. Few people who get married imagine that their marriage might end in acrimonious divorce, but it happens all too frequently, even though they "know each other personally".

Good exegesis uses clear teachings of the word of God to explain the difficult. Not the other way around.

Good exegesis approaches the text as objectively as possible, interpreting it in its context. If the meaning is unclear, then other scripture can be consulted (also in context) to help improve understanding.

Jesus tells unbelievers,
". . . But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one." -- John 10:26-30.

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . " -- 1 John 5:1.

I told you in my last post, I'm not interested in rehashing that here. If you wish, we can continue to discuss the topic in your other thread.

[37818]

See my last couple posts for the general gist of the passage. I honestly don't see how anyone can objectively approach Heb. 10 and think that it's referring to eternal security. It's such an important doctrine to you, however, that you seem to see everything through that lens.

We can take this to the other thread as you suggested.

Fundy atheists are typically not really atheists; they're just ticked off at God about something, and reject Him like a spurned lover. Few people who get married imagine that their marriage might end in acrimonious divorce, but it happens all too frequently, even though they "know each other personally".

Any personal "atheistic bent" that I might have, has more to do with other Christians than with any anger toward God. God is not at fault. If I were an atheist, it would be because there is no God. Since there is one, and He is knowable, cannot be an atheist. God is personally knowable through Christ alone.

Good exegesis approaches the text as objectively as possible, interpreting it in its context. If the meaning is unclear, then other scripture can be consulted (also in context) to help improve understanding.

agreed. And again, I would add, one can understand the difficult by the explicit and more understandable teachings.

[One Bad Pig]

Any personal "atheistic bent" that I might have, has more to do with other Christians than with any anger toward God. God is not at fault. If I were an atheist, it would be because there is no God. Since there is one, and He is knowable, cannot be an atheist. God is personally knowable through Christ alone.

You've completely missed the point I was trying to make. I don't think you have an "atheistic bent." I think that placing too much trust in the strength of your convictions is naive at best (fwiw, IMO you're similar to Timeless Theist in this regard). I'm not sure how else to explain it.