- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,850
- 8,377
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The people Jesus was speaking to in Capernaum in John 6 were under the old covenant.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The people Jesus was speaking to in Capernaum in John 6 were under the old covenant.The Eucharist was not instituted at the time of John the Baptist. He lived and died under the old covenant.
The people Jesus was speaking to in Capernaum in John 6 were under the old covenant.
So then what Jesus was saying to the people in the bread of life discourse didn’t actually apply to them?Everyone Jesus spoke to were under the old covenant. The old covenant continued on and overlapped the new covenant.
Heb 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
So then what Jesus was saying to the people in the bread of life discourse didn’t actually apply to them?
Ok so you literally believe that everyone who received the Eucharist will receive eternal life and everyone who hasn’t won’t?Once it was instituted it did. The old covenant continued for a time but was then finally ended when the temple was permanently destroyed. After that there was no place for the old covenant to even be complied with. And very few Jews from then until modern times practice sacrifice.
Ok so you literally believe that everyone who received the Eucharist will receive eternal life and everyone who hasn’t won’t?
My Church did not get that from the bible. The Church got that from the Apostles before the bible was written. It was the Apostles who went out evangelizing and teaching the doctrine of the Apostles. The Eucharist has been central to Christianity since that time. That is the reason that all Apostolic Churches hold to the same belief and teaching, and the reason why there is an unbroken and unanimous chain of commentaries reaching from the Church Fathers down to this very day recording that teaching.
-Then why use the Bible and words from The Bible in your posted thread. Why not post the words given to your church from the apostles.
The words given to the Church by the Apostles were eventually written down to become the new testament. Now let me give you an example.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Notice he doesn't say "get a cup and start blessing it". He says "the cup of blessing that we bless". The Corinthians -just like all the other Churches- were already blessing the cup long before Paul wrote a letter to them. And they were taught to do that by the Apostles. Now, which came first, the bible or the teaching of the Apostles? Romans is another example. Paul wrote to a Church that was already established in Rome. They had already bee taught by Apostles long before Paul wrote his letter to them
The Orthodox Church existed during the lifetimes of the Apostles. Else we wouldn't have all those letters sent to them.-The Last Apostle was John, so where did your church get the belief that you believe, from The Bible. The apostolic age ended with the death of John.
Right so then you would agree that these statements are in fact not literal?No. That is entirely up to Jesus on judgement day.
Right so then you would agree that these statements are in fact not literal?
“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 yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:53-54 NASB1995
If these statements were literal then Judas would be saved because he received the Eucharist directly from Christ Himself.
“I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’”
John 13:18 NASB1995
And everyone who didn’t receive the Eucharist could not be saved.
I agree with everything you said here except James’ quote about justification by works. The Greek word translated to “justified” not only means to be counted as being righteous by God but it can also mean to be shown or evinced as being righteous which is the definition I believe he was using since the context of the chapter was about works being evidence of our faith. The examples he used of Abraham and Rahab he says you can see their faith by their works. If James actually meant that we are counted as being righteous by our works then he would’ve been directly contradicting Paul in Romans 4 and a few other passages. But I do agree that we must abide in Christ and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life.Those statements are true. They speak to entering into salvation. But just because someone enters into salvation doesn't mean they will receive that salvation at the end. Jesus said, "he who endures to the end shall be saved". Paul spoke of salvation by grace through faith while James said "a man is justified by works and not by faith only", Jas 2:24. They are two different points in time. As Paul said to the Ephesians, we enter into salvation by grace through faith, Eph 2:8, then as he said to the Romans we must continue in goodness else we will be cut off, Rom 11:22.
So, "I will raise him up on the last day", provided that he "endures to the end" and does not disqualify himself, 1 Cor 9:27, 2 Cor 13:5. That has always been the teaching of Christianity.
I agree with everything you said here except James’ quote about justification by works. The Greek word translated to “justified” not only means to be counted as being righteous by God but it can also mean to be shown or evinced as being righteous which is the definition I believe he was using since the context of the chapter was about works being evidence of our faith. The examples he used of Abraham and Rahab he says you can see their faith by their works. If James actually meant that we are counted as being righteous by our works then he would’ve been directly contradicting Paul in Romans 4 and a few other passages. But I do agree that we must abide in Christ and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life.
The Orthodox Church existed during the lifetimes of the Apostles. Else we wouldn't have all those letters sent to them.
-So in the possession of your church they have the original letters from John, Peter, Luke, Paul; etc...
Then that is a direct contradiction of Romans 4.James does not contradict Paul. Paul uses the example of Abraham being justified by faith, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness". But James says Abraham was justified by his works. And there is no contradiction there. Abraham entered into the grace of God by faith alone, but he was still required to offer Isaac as a sacrifice afterwards, meaning he had to follow through on his faith with his works. That is the case of every man. We enter into salvation by grace through faith but it is our works that determine whether we remain in that salvation.
You stopped short in your quote from Paul my friend. What did he say right after that statement?James does not contradict Paul. Paul uses the example of Abraham being justified by faith, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness". But James says Abraham was justified by his works. And there is no contradiction there. Abraham entered into the grace of God by faith alone, but he was still required to offer Isaac as a sacrifice afterwards, meaning he had to follow through on his faith with his works. That is the case of every man. We enter into salvation by grace through faith but it is our works that determine whether we remain in that salvation.
Then that is a direct contradiction of Romans 4.
“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”
Romans 4:1-5 NASB1995
Here Paul specifically says that Abraham was not justified by his works but by his faith. James says
“But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.””
James 2:18 NASB1995
“You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;”
James 2:22 NASB1995
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
James 2:24 NASB1995
James is saying that our works are evidence of our faith. We can see a person’s faith by their works.
Justified
dikaioō
G1344
1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
Your interpretation contradicts Romans 4, mine doesn’t. James can’t be contradicting Paul so the logical definition of the word justified in James 2 is definition 2, to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered.
No the discussion went from works of the law to works in general. He says it again in Ephesians 2:8-9You are confusing works with works of the law:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
The works of the law, works of righteousness, etc., refers to all the trappings of the Levitical law that Christianity has never held to. And Christianity has never held to them because the law was changed:
Heb 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
This argument has been going on from the beginning, see 2 Pet 3:15-16.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?