Immaculate Conception

[Extraneous]

Wrong, as he most certainly did, but being carnally minded they were unable to perceive it.

Note however that the Lord used figurative language before this without explaining it, or giving much of one, which does not mean such was literal, but they were such extreme statements as to make it obvious that the literal cannot be true. But the Lord purposely often used enigmatic language to entice true seekers to pursue the meaning, which seeking prepares the heart for efficacious receiving, while letting the carnal seekers do on in delusions.

For in Jn. 2, the Lord "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19) which was taken literally, and which the Lord did not correct, and ended up being a charge at His trial. But we understand what He meant by what other text says. Likewise we understand how "born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3:7) takes place in the light of other texts.

Then in Jn. 4, the Lord speaks of "living water," which gives everlasting life, a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, yet which again was understood as being physical even though it had been subtly inferred to be spiritual, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

Then in Jn. 6 in dealing with souls looking for another free lunch, the Lord again uses even more extreme statements, no less than making an absolute imperative (as other "verily verily" statements are) requirement that unless one eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, then they have no spiritual life in them. Which thus leaves all the Prots which V2 affirms as being born again to be spiritually dead. Of course, this is were RCs who throw this verse up at us have to dance backpedal when faced with the implications of it.

Moreover, if this is how one obtains spiritual life, then we would see this preached as the means of regeneration, but instead only the metaphysical understanding of eating-receiving is seen, and the Lord's Supper is scarcely manifestly mentioned in the life of the church. Concerning with see here.

But the Lord goes on to teach that living by this "bread" of flesh and blood is analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And as we must do with prior statements, we must examine other Scripture texts to see how the Lord lived, and therein we see the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And thus in Jn. 4 the Lord states -once again (as is prevalent in John) using metaphor - to His disciples "I have meat to eat that ye know not of." But who thought He was referring to physical bread, thus once again using metaphor the Lord explains, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34) and refers to lost souls as crops to be harvested. But here we see how the Lord "lived by His Father, believing with a working faith.

Going back to Jn. 5, the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future (note that there is nothing of the Neoplatonic theology of the "real but not bloody" flesh and bloody body, being real though it appears otherwise, yet not being real when it starts to lose the appearance which is contrary to being real)., but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)
And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually.

But it is only the metaphysical understanding that easily conflates with the rest of Scripture, and John in particular, in which one obtains spiritual and eternal life by believing.

As was explained here a couple pages back before you arrived, and which now requires me to reiterate much.

Amen. Good scriptures.



John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”



John 4:31 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.”

32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”

33 Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”

34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35 Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields!

 

[Extraneous]

I don't know if this comparison is relevant, but it seems like it might be.

John 4:48 “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

 

[Root of Jesse]

Amen. Good scriptures.



John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”



John 4:31 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.”

32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”

33 Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”

34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35 Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields!

Rather than highlighting and bolding Scripture, why don't you tell us what you think it means??? Of course, you have no authority to interpret Scripture, so it doesn't really matter, but try using your own words. When our people, i.e. the Doctors of the Church, use their own words, you discount them, but want us to heed your own. The Doctors of the Church are, by and large, bishops and such, who were given the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. You may have been, too, but how would we know??

 

[Extraneous]

Rather than highlighting and bolding Scripture, why don't you tell us what you think it means??? Of course, you have no authority to interpret Scripture, so it doesn't really matter, but try using your own words. When our people, i.e. the Doctors of the Church, use their own words, you discount them, but want us to heed your own. The Doctors of the Church are, by and large, bishops and such, who were given the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. You may have been, too, but how would we know??

I know what God wants from me brother, im content. I try to share things if i can, if people find them useful then good, if not then it doesn't matter because it didn't cost anything to post it, so i'm not losing anything. Jesus promised to teach us all things, but that doesnt necessarily refer to all mysteries, it may just refer to his daily guidance. Im content, i dont need any messy religion. I dont need to understand all mysteries either, just my daily bread is all i need.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I know what God wants from me brother, im content. I try to share things if i can, if people find them useful then good, if not then it doesn't matter because it didn't cost anything to post it, so i'm not losing anything. Jesus promised to teach us all things, but that doesnt necessarily refer to all mysteries, it may just refer to his daily guidance. Im content, i dont need any messy religion. I dont need to understand all mysteries either, just my daily bread is all i need.

For the most part, you've shared your own opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is never valid, but I will trust the people the Holy Spirit indwelt, those I am sure have that quality.
Jesus did teach His Church all things we are meant to know here on Earth. I trust His Church, which He instituted, and the Holy Spirit, to keep it all straight. What the Church believed for 1500 years with very little dissent is much more reliable to me than that which came after, which shattered the unity of the Church into 30,000 denominations, probably more. This was a revelation 10 years ago, I'm not someone who was brought up Catholic.
I respect your decision not to agree with the Church's teaching. I just disagree, with overwhelming evidence on my side.

 

[Extraneous]

I'll tell you something else. All these Doctors of theology and so called Apostles, with all their debates and theories, division and strife, im not impressed with all that. If i had to rely on all that confusion i would just give up. Thank God he showed me the simple path.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'll tell you something else. All these Doctors of theology and so called Apostles, with all their debates and theories, division and strife, im not impressed with all that. If i had to rely on all that confusion i would just give up. Thank God he showed me the simple path.

I don't necessarily care about theologians. Therese' of the Child Jesus was a simple 20 year old peasant, yet she's a Doctor of the Church. She tells of how she overcame her human emotion by following the little Way, doing infinitesimally small acts of kindness as a nun in her cloistered convent. She's not a theologian. Theresa of Avila isn't either. Neither is Faustina Kowalska. They never debated, never theorized, never caused division or strife. But they're Doctors of the Church. Very simple to read what they taught-they all have books which are not confusing at all, which all point the way to heaven.

 

[Extraneous]

For the most part, you've shared your own opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is never valid, but I will trust the people the Holy Spirit indwelt, those I am sure have that quality.
Jesus did teach His Church all things we are meant to know here on Earth. I trust His Church, which He instituted, and the Holy Spirit, to keep it all straight. What the Church believed for 1500 years with very little dissent is much more reliable to me than that which came after, which shattered the unity of the Church into 30,000 denominations, probably more. This was a revelation 10 years ago, I'm not someone who was brought up Catholic.
I respect your decision not to agree with the Church's teaching. I just disagree, with overwhelming evidence on my side.

You seem to want me to leave my simple path of excellence, and embrace all this messy Catholicism/SDA/EO/Anglican/Pentecostal/Messianic Jew/Jehovah Witness/LDS...with all its sub reformed divisions and sects, and all its movements and general chaos?

No thanks my friend, im free from all that. I feel greatly blessed with the simple path. Simplicity in Christ

 

[Root of Jesse]

You seem to want me to leave my simple path of excellence, and embrace all this messy Catholicism/SDA/EO/Anglican/Pentecostal/Messianic Jew/Jehovah Witness/LDS...with all its sub reformed divisions and sects, and all its movements and general chaos?

No thanks my friend, im free from all that. I feel greatly blessed with the simple path. Simplicity in Christ

I'm not trying to get you to leave anything. I'm just discoursing with you about the meaning of Scripture. I've said nothing about SDA/EO/Anglican/Pentecostal/Messianic Jew/Jehovah Witness/LDS, or Catholic. While I have a Catholic POV, it's more about Apostolic. Jesus only created one Church. He longed for Christian Unity (John 17). Look what we've done! There is so much division, but there is one Body of Teaching, Catholicism, that came from Him. I consider you a brother in Christ, and thank you for respectful discussion.

 

[Extraneous]

I don't necessarily care about theologians. Therese' of the Child Jesus was a simple 20 year old peasant, yet she's a Doctor of the Church. She tells of how she overcame her human emotion by following the little Way, doing infinitesimally small acts of kindness as a nun in her cloistered convent. She's not a theologian. Theresa of Avila isn't either. Neither is Faustina Kowalska. They never debated, never theorized, never caused division or strife. But they're Doctors of the Church. Very simple to read what they taught-they all have books which are not confusing at all, which all point the way to heaven.

I already know the way to heaven brother, and if i miss something im sure the Lord will bring it to my attention through one of these forums. Im turned off by Christian writings. I guess the division has made it difficult on me.

 

[Extraneous]

I'm not trying to get you to leave anything. I'm just discoursing with you about the meaning of Scripture. I've said nothing about SDA/EO/Anglican/Pentecostal/Messianic Jew/Jehovah Witness/LDS, or Catholic. While I have a Catholic POV, it's more about Apostolic. Jesus only created one Church. He longed for Christian Unity (John 17). Look what we've done! There is so much division, but there is one Body of Teaching, Catholicism, that came from Him. I consider you a brother in Christ, and thank you for respectful discussion.

Sorry if i misunderstood.

 

[Thursday]

It id not a simply question, as it is based upon certain presupposition that must be addressed,

No, it is a simple question which you refuse to answer.

Jesus started one Church, which one is it?

 

[Thursday]

There you go again, ignoring what refutes you and asking the same question. But as i said in my brief reply you have ignored,

And as this is just an absolute imperative as other "verily verily" statements, then if the literal view is correct then it has to mean that [concerning] those who do not believe in the Catholic "Real Presence" and consume it, then they have no spiritual life in them.

Which relegates [you] to being in dissent from V2 and akin to SSPV type RCs.

The fact is that only the figurative understanding is what easily and substantively is conflative with the rest of Scripture, as seen here in part by God's grace.​

The figurative understanding about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is heresy, and it declared as much by the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

There is also no dispute that God can channel his grace through more than one avenue.

Denying the presence of Christ in the Eucharist requires ignoring scripture and history. This belief is caused by a lack of faith.

 

[Albion]

For the most part, you've shared your own opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is never valid, but I will trust the people the Holy Spirit indwelt, those I am sure have that quality.
Jesus did teach His Church all things we are meant to know here on Earth. I trust His Church, which He instituted, and the Holy Spirit, to keep it all straight. What the Church believed for 1500 years with very little dissent is much more reliable to me than that which came after, which shattered the unity of the Church into 30,000 denominations, probably more. This was a revelation 10 years ago, I'm not someone who was brought up Catholic.
I respect your decision not to agree with the Church's teaching. I just disagree, with overwhelming evidence on my side.

But the evidence is NOT on that side. This is the main problem everyone has with discussions that feature that argument. The "My denomination is right because it says so" attitude is simply a discussion killer, and that's so because everyone of any affiliation can say the same thing!

 

[Root of Jesse]

But the evidence is NOT on that side. This is the main problem everyone has with discussions that feature that argument. The "My denomination is right because it says so" attitude is simply a discussion killer, and that's so because everyone of any affiliation can say the same thing!

My Church (I don't belong to any denomination-that's anti-Biblical) is right because Jesus said it's right.

 

[Extraneous]

My Church (I don't belong to any denomination-that's anti-Biblical) is right because Jesus said it's right.

Brother, brother, brother. No

 

[Albion]

My Church...is right because Jesus said it's right.

Yes, I hear the same thing from every JW, Mormon, and etc. too.

Which is not to say that no one should believe such a thing, rightly or wrongly, but we're supposed to be here to discuss things.

Oh well.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm denying that the Church 'required the extermination of heretics'.

Wrong. Thus the unanswered question, Just what do you consider to be church teaching requiring assent?

Assent to what? Molestation of children?

No, that was never cited by me, and thus it avoids answering the simple question which awaits your reply.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Completely unresponsive.

Indeed, that is exactly what you are to what refutes you. But that "the metaphorical use of eating and drinking abounds in Scripture" as well as the "use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual" clearly responses to your argument that "Everything about Jesus, from his title "Lamb of God" to the town he was born in, to the manger he was born in, suggests food." That some failed to see this in Jn. 6, and saw it was literal, is nothing new nor makes it literal, anymore than seeing "destroy this temple" was.

However, i did forget to respond to your statement that some of "his closest friends' went back to their previous lives, as where are you getting that those "disciples" that went back were some of the Lord's closest friends? You are simply reading that into the texts, as the word "disciple" simply means "learner" and can be used quite loosely, and the inference is that those who went back were those who came looking for another free meal, and which carnal "Jews therefore strove among themselves" (v. 52) thinking, as often was the case, that the Lord's use of metaphor was literal, and the Lord IDs those who went back as those which believe not, who were not given unto him of His Father. (v. 65)

Thus they hardly would be the Lord's "closest friends," but mere carnal souls who were looking for a temporal savior and temporal things. And John is constantly contrasting the two, and nowhere teaches that spiritual life is obtained by physical eating, but by believing on the Lord Jesus, which Acts shows is what results in being born again, and never even described the Catholic Eucharist (merely breaking bread does not).

John's entire 3 epistles also do not mention the Catholic Eucharist though no doubt some desperate RCs will try to read it into something, but while describing how one may know they have eternal life, John simply teaches believing, with a faith that effects holiness and love.

Certainly obeying Christ includes remembering His death by eating in communion with others who are bought by His sinless shed blood, but it is hardly set forth in the life of the church as the central means of grace, and "source and summit of the Christian life" "in which our redemption is accomplished" and around which all else revolves. Instead it is only mentioned in one epistle (besides the mere mention of "feast of charity in Jude 1:14).

And which does not describe the Catholic Eucharist

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But there are. The apostle James was buried in Northwestern Spain, and enshrined in Compostela, Spain.

Wrong. As said in the context of Scriptural revelation, there simply are no other apostolic successors save for Judas, while the apostle James was not an apostolic successor.

You don't read in Scripture about the other Apostolic Successors because the Bible, almost exclusively, speaks of only the first generation of the Christian Church.

But the death of James certainly would require one if such were to continue, and it is incongruous that it would not be mentioned, esp. in the Acts of the apostles. Nor is there any manifest preparation for continually choosing successors, unlike for presbuteros/episkopos (one office).

And that which was for Judas employed a method that Rome has never used.

The apostles prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance before casting lots, so the Holy Spirit was involved in the process.

Also wrong, if not a major issue as nowhere is the Holy Spirit addressed in prayer, which was always to the Father or the Son.

In what way?

In what way? Read the texts. Do you claim your pope all have had personal teaching by the seen Lord whom you said as was the case with with Matthias and Paul (1Co. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) Note we are speaking of apostolic successors, while there could be more apostles than the 12.

And that they also have the credentials of Biblical apostles:

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)