Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the "welcome"! The family is well.

However, your interpretation of John 6 is simply wrong! You are jerking a few verses out of the greater context and interpreting them in contradiction to the greater context of the chapter.

You are making the words of Christ MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the audiance as the Lord's Supper had not even been instituted, the cross had not yet occurred. He is speaking of something they could obtain right then at the point of speaking.

Eating physical substance to sustain physical life is simply an analogy. Your intepretation rejects the analogy and maintains necessity of eating physical substance for eternal life. His body and blood is physical substance just as the doctrine of transubstantiation demands. He is not basing his message on FUTURE tense verbs but PRESENT TENSE verbs.

Jesus is taking the physical analogy to teach a spiritual truth about the nature of receiving eternal life through faith rather than the nature of the Lord's Supper which had not even been instituted. No one could possibly literally eat Christ's body or drink his blood at this point - no one! If this was the way to obtain eternal life at this point then none of his audiance could possibly have obtained it and Jesus is simply misleading his audiance. He is talking about something his actual audiance at that actual time could do, not somthing they could not do. Yet Catholicism makes his message to them about eternal life meaniningless, empty and useless AT THE POINT of speaking.

Furthermore, he makes the point of his analogy obvious twice previous to the disputed passage and then it is repeated again after this passage in the words of Peter:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not[/B].

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

The analogy is simple and clear. A person partakes of Christ by faith as a person partakes of food by eating and drinking. Literal eating and drinking physical food is necessar for physical life, just as spiritually eating and drinking of Christ by faith is necessary for spiritual life. However, Rome rejects the obvious analogy and demands the physical is the essential for the spiritual thus making his message MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the actual audiance hearing him as NONE could obtain eternal life by such a message at such a time to such an audiance.

However, as understood by Peter, eternal life by faith in Him had already been obtained, and thus could be obtained AT THE POINT IN TIME of this message.

Your doctrine makes the message an exercise of futility as far as the actual audiance obtaining eternal life right then and there!

He is doining what MANY did throughout the Gospel of John, of mistaking spiritual meanings and intent o fthe Lord to be referring to something physical!

IF we opress his way of understanding this passage...

salvation is found ONLY theu the RCC, as jesus gave that riteto administer grace thru that sacrament , but that would contridict every passage in the NT regarding what truely saves us!

 

[The Biblicist]

He is doining what MANY did throughout the Gospel of John, of mistaking spiritual meanings and intent o fthe Lord to be referring to something physical!

IF we opress his way of understanding this passage...

salvation is found ONLY theu the RCC, as jesus gave that riteto administer grace thru that sacrament , but that would contridict every passage in the NT regarding what truely saves us!

The passage as Rome explains it makes it an exercise of futility for the audiance in his presence. Neither the supper had been instituted nor his blood shed at this poiint. However, He uses the present tense verbs "I AM the bread of life" "eateth....drinketh" noting that what he was teaching could be implemented by his audience right then and there. The only thing preventing present application is the lack of faith (Jn. 6:64-66). Peter and the rest of the disicples had ALREADY ate and drank of Him by faith (Jn. 6:67-70) and those listening could have equally obtained eternal life as instructed right then and there on the spot.

 

[Yeshua1]

The passage as Rome explains it makes it an exercise of futility for the audiance in his presence. Neither the supper had been instituted nor his blood shed at this poiint. However, He uses the present tense verbs "I AM the bread of life" "eateth....drinketh" noting that what he was teaching could be implemented by his audience right then and there. The only thing preventing present application is the lack of faith (Jn. 6:64-66). Peter and the rest of the disicples had ALREADY ate and drank of Him by faith (Jn. 6:67-70) and those listening could have equally obtained eternal life as instructed right then and there on the spot.

Jesus would have been referring to an actual reality right at the time of the discourse, not talking about what was to come, correct?

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed. Nicodumus took the symbol of re-birth too literally in John 3

And then John shows us that some fo the disciples of Jesus do the same thing in John 6 with the "eat the flesh" regarding "bread of heaven" - for Christ was not predicting that some day in the future he would be the "bread that came down from heaven" but that he already WAS the "Word that became flesh".

The "take it too literally" issue in John 3 - includes the key statement of Nicodemus a person physically going back to their physical mother and being physically born again - as in literal physical human birth.

In the case of Matt 16 - taking the symbol of bread too literally when in fact it is a symbol for "teaching" we find this clear statement.

Matt 16
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up?
10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up?

11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

No. As I said it isn't because Jesus wasn't taken "too literally". If Jesus discussion with Nicodemus was just symbolism. Then when one is born again you must accept that one isn't regenerate.

What is clear from what Nicodemus said - is that the "literal" view would be that a person must return to their mother to experience physical birth again. Nothing at all in Nicodumus' too literal interpretation about spiritual regeneration. I think we both see that clearly.

Yet you see that you are answering in the place of a cradle catholic when h you say that being "born again" cannot be a symbol for the spiritual concept of spiritual regeneration. It is not possible that a Baptist considering the subject is miss the fact that Nicodemus was taking the spiritual symbol of new birth too literally to make it physical birth from one's mother.

So it is with Jesus discussion in John 6. Jesus really wants you to eat him.

Not according to John 6 where NNE bites Christ. Not the disciples leaving and not the ones staying.

Furthermore - John 6 is NOT a communion service so even by Roman Catholic standards - no one was supposed to be physically eating him.

And in John 6 - Jesus said it must already happen - not that some day in the future it would be needed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thanks for the "welcome"! The family is well.

I'm glad to hear it.

However, your interpretation of John 6 is simply wrong! You are jerking a few verses out of the greater context and interpreting them in contradiction to the greater context of the chapter.

Actually, no I'm not. What I am doing is taking Jesus at his word.

You are making the words of Christ MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the audience as the Lord's Supper had not even been instituted, the cross had not yet occurred. He is speaking of something they could obtain right then at the point of speaking.

Not at all. I showing that they are full of meaning and it is in the context of the sacrificial meal called Passover as the verses point out. It is also in the context of Christ himself being our meal. The very meal which sustains and gives us life.

Eating physical substance to sustain physical life is simply an analogy.

Your error is quite clear. You have the erroneous paradigm that the word "spirit" is equal to the word "symbolism" in this discourse which of course it is not because if following your insistence that spirit means only analogy. Then one would have to accept that Jesus wasn't being literal about being crucified. So clearly your following an illogical assumption about "spirit" equating to "analogy".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He is doining what MANY did throughout the Gospel of John, of mistaking spiritual meanings and intent o fthe Lord to be referring to something physical!

IF we opress his way of understanding this passage...

salvation is found ONLY theu the RCC, as jesus gave that riteto administer grace thru that sacrament , but that would contridict every passage in the NT regarding what truely saves us!

You cant' mess with Jesus words. I'm not doing anything other than pointing them out.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The "take it too literally" issue in John 3 - includes the key statement of Nicodemus a person physically going back to their physical mother and being physically born again - as in literal physical human birth.

As I've said. Nicodemus isn't guilty of taking it too literally but confusing the modes. If he took it too literally then you would have to admit, which I've noticed you stay clear away from, that being born again doesn't mean an ontological change or a substantive change in the person born again. Its not a case of literalism but mode. Otherwise you are just repeating yourself.

In the case of Matt 16 - taking the symbol of bread too literally when in fact it is a symbol for "teaching" we find this clear statement.

As I explained there is no connection between what we are talking about an Matthew 16.

Matt 16
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up?
10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up?

11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

See its not even the same subject! You can't compare the two passages. Its a pretty lengthy stretch to combine the two. In one Jesus is saying you must eat him because he is the bread of life in this passage the disciples think Jesus is mad because they didn't bring bread. The only thing similar in the two verses is the word bread. Just because in a totally different context Jesus uses bread in one way doesn't mean he always uses it that way. Or else you must believe that during the institution of communion Jesus didn't hold up actual bread but a group of Pharisees which he blessed and passed around to eaten by his disciples. It is an illogical jump.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm glad to hear it.

So clearly your following an illogical assumption about "spirit" equating to "analogy".

Nice try. However, Rome's interpretation has no application in present time to the audiance. No supper instituted yet, no cross, no shedding of blood, no sacrifice of his body therefore no Transubstantion possible.

What Jesus is teaching has been already obeyed by His disciples and can be obeyed by his listeners right then and there.

 

[Yeshua1]

You cant' mess with Jesus words. I'm not doing anything other than pointing them out.

Your quoting the words, but fail to understand the intended meaning of them!

 

[BobRyan]

Nice try. However, Rome's interpretation has no application in present time to the audiance. No supper instituted yet, no cross, no shedding of blood, no sacrifice of his body therefore no Transubstantion possible.

What Jesus is teaching has been already obeyed by His disciples and can be obeyed by his listeners right then and there.

this is one of the 12 points in my list of key objective facts available to all in John 6. Jesus did not say "some day in the future I will be the Bread of heaven" or "someday in the future you will need to eat that bread".

He already was the bread of heaven that already came down from heaven according to John 6 - and they already needed to eat that bread if they wanted eternal life.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The "take it too literally" issue in John 3 - includes the key statement of Nicodemus a person physically going back to their physical mother and being physically born again - as in literal physical human birth.

As I've said. Nicodemus isn't guilty of taking it too literally but confusing the modes. If he took it too literally then you would have to admit, which I've noticed you stay clear away from, that being born again doesn't mean an ontological change or a substantive change in the person born again.

1. That response speaks volumes - you are having to deny the obvious to hold to your point. While a cradle catholic is free to ignore that - there is no way a Baptist - considering that option of Catholicism would have joined you in the leap off the cliff that you just took.

2. The literal option was - physically return to your mother to repeat the same literal physical act of being born. The is increadibly obvious to all and it is the one that Nicodemus takes in his unbelieving state.

The unbelievers in john 3, on John 6 and the slow to believe in Matt 16 - always take the too-literal option.

3. The fall-back position for a failed argument is just "pretend you don't see the point" - and some have likely tried that one on you on this very board. You are doing it now - and it is apparent.

4. Context is everything when it comes to exegesis - and the same symbol used to represent the same concept - explicitly stated in both Matt 16 bread (for teaching - doctrine) -- and John 6 bread-from heaven for (my WORD that IS spirit and that gives LIFE) - is an essential element in exegeting that chapter.

5. In a hospital there are two modes for a baby to be born - c-section and natural birth. Baptizing the mother or the infant is not one of them

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. That response speaks volumes - you are having to deny the obvious to hold to your point. While a cradle catholic is free to ignore that - there is no way a Baptist - considering that option of Catholicism would have joined you in the leap off the cliff that you just took

Actually what is being denied. Nay what is being ignored is by you. You keep purposely ignoring the fact of whether a person who is born again goes through a substantive changed. You know that if you agree that a born again person goes through a substantive change then Jesus is in fact speaking to a person being actually born again as a new creature. Born again in this discussion isn't an issue because the reality is a new creature is born a living creature. But you keep ignoring that fact. You know if you deny this substantive change to keep consistent in this discussion is simply symbolic. Then you would have to admit nothing Jesus said is real.

2. The literal option was - physically return to your mother to repeat the same literal physical act of being born. The is increadibly obvious to all and it is the one that Nicodemus takes in his unbelieving state.

And this shows your disconnect. Physical doesn't mean more real and spiritual doesn't mean less real or symbolic. This is where you are faulted in the whole discussion.

3. The fall-back position for a failed argument is just "pretend you don't see the point" - and some have likely tried that one on you on this very board. You are doing it now - and it is apparent.

The only person "pretending" not to see something is you as you have not answered whether you believe that Jesus holds being born again isn't a substantive change in the individual or not. You've trapped yourself.

4. Context is everything when it comes to exegesis - and the same symbol used to represent the same concept - explicitly stated in both Matt 16 bread (for teaching - doctrine) -- and John 6 bread-from heaven for (my WORD that IS spirit and that gives LIFE) - is an essential element in exegeting that chapter.

Again spirit does not equal symbolism or else you can't take Jesus at his word for anything thus the body which he says will be offered up in sacrifice must be symbolic. But that is not what Jesus said. And again Matt 16 can find no correlation to John 6 two entirely different discussions. Therefore you are apply eisegesis to John 6 by mistakenly connecting it to Matt 16.

5. In a hospital there are two modes for a baby to be born - c-section and natural birth. Baptizing the mother or the infant is not one of them

Then you are far from understanding scripture and the spirit. In Genesis man did not become a living being until the spirit was breathed into him. Thus it is the spirit which gives life. Let me quote this argument from the reformation.

"They object, first, the words of Christ: " it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. These words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"(John 6:64) See there, they say,, the words which you make use of to prove the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are figurative expressions, which signify the celestial food of life, which we receive by Faith. We answer, with St. John Chrysostom (1), that when Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he spoke not of his own flesh, God forbid! But of those who carnally receive it, as the Apostle says: "The sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2: 14), and those who carnally speak of the Divine Mysteries, and to this St. John refers when he says: "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John 6:64), meaning that these words refer not to carnal and perishable things, but to spiritual things and to eternal life. But even supposing these words to refer to the flesh of Christ itself, they only mean, as St. Athenasius and St. Augustine explain them, that the flesh of Christ, given to us as food sanctifies us by the Spirit, or the Divinity united to it. But that the flesh alone would be of no avail..."- Aphonsus Liguori "History of Heresy

I quote this author to express that we are indeed talking about modes. You are limiting man to just the flesh but that is not how God created us we are both flesh and Spirit therefore there is a mode of birth and death which is by spirit. God told Adam " for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die" but did Adam die in the flesh that day? No in fact " Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." According to the flesh he lived another 930 years. However, we see in that same day when he ate of the fruit " and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God" By the Spiritual mode he died that very day.

As a Baptist or an SDA. You have a serious Paradigm problem to deal with if you equate Spirit to analogy. In the scriptures the spirit is more real than the flesh. Therefore Spiritual mode is the only way you can understand John 3 or John 6. Which doesn't mean any less real. Nicodemus wasn't an more literal he just only applied it to his flesh and not the spirit. Yet by the spirit there is a new creature.

Here is another problem you face. You mentioned that Jesus doesn't present his flesh to be eaten as some future date. But I while re-reading the passage it became clear to me you missed something.

And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh

So he is talking about a future time when he will offer his bread.

Also you face this problem. If Spirit equates to analogy and bread is analogy then this verse I just quoted that this bread which equals his body must mean his crucified body is also analogy. And since you say spirit equals symbolism therefore you must hold Jesus died on the Cross symbolically and then what makes you different than the gnostics?

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is another problem you face. You mentioned that Jesus doesn't present his flesh to be eaten as some future date. But I while re-reading the passage it became clear to me you missed something.
So he is talking about a future time when he will offer his bread.

Why not use some common sense when you are reading? Obviously to those who have not yet eaten it is future and it will always be future to those who presently are not beleiving!

However, His presentation of himself for eating in this sense is always PRESENT not future. "I AM...eatETH....drinkETH..." However, this is impossible for your position as the Lord's Supper had not yet been instituted and so none could PRESENTLY partake in your sense. His blood and flesh had not yet been sacrified and so none could PRESENTLY partake in your sense.

Peter claims he already had eaten the "WORDS of LIFE" and then defines precisely what partaking of Christ really means "WE BELIEVE thou art the Christ...."

Rome's interpretation is simply false without any Biblical or practical basis for the audiance Jesus is addressing.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ uses the physical symbol of birth to stand for the spiritual idea of spiritual regeneration. (even Catholics refer to this as a "mark on the soul" and not a Baby being born to its physical mother).

Nicodemus is an unbelieving state in John 3 - so when Christ uses this symbol of Birth - Nicodemus sticks with "physical birth" -- the too literal response of an unbeliever.

Incredibly obvious to any Baptist who is at the point of possibly considering Catholicism but has not yet gone for it hook-line-and-sinker.

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
As I've said. Nicodemus isn't guilty of taking it too literally but confusing the modes.

Hint - As we all know the "two modes" for physical birth are c-section vs natural child birth. Your effort to bend this is not working.

1. That response speaks volumes - you are having to deny the obvious to hold to your point. While a cradle catholic is free to ignore that - there is no way a Baptist - considering that option of Catholicism would have joined you in the leap off the cliff that you just took.

2. The literal option was - physically return to your mother to repeat the same literal physical act of being born. The is increadibly obvious to all and it is the one that Nicodemus takes in his unbelieving state.

The unbelievers in john 3, on John 6 and the slow to believe in Matt 16 - always take the too-literal option.

3. The fall-back position for a failed argument is just "pretend you don't see the point" until you can find a compelling response. ( - and some have likely tried that one on you on this very board. You are doing it now - and it is apparent.)

4. Context is everything when it comes to exegesis - and the same symbol used to represent the same concept - explicitly stated in both Matt 16 bread (for teaching - doctrine) -- and John 6 bread-from heaven for (my WORD that IS spirit and that gives LIFE) - is an essential element in exegeting that chapter.

Actually what is being denied. Nay what is being ignored is by you. You keep purposely ignoring the fact of whether a person who is born again goes through a substantive changed. You know that if you agree that a born again person goes through a substantive change then Jesus is in fact speaking to a person being actually born again as a new creature. Born again in this discussion isn't an issue because the reality is a new creature is born a living creature.

A cow, a horse, a human, two humans -- or as Nicodemus suggests one human going back to its mother seeking another physical birth - are the obvious physical examples of creatures - adding one, subtracting one, trying to get one to be physically born again etc - if we limit ourselves to the physical as Nicodemus was doing in his too-literal view then that is all we would ever have.

Again this is incredibly obvious to all of us.

Jesus is using the physical symbol to represent a spiritual reality. Hint that is how symbolism works in cases like this.

You keep circling around a non sequitur that you would never have been reduced to as a Baptist first considering the Catholic option and we both know it. Your claim that Nicodemus' idea is not taking the matter "too literally" is not even credible for fellow catholics. You need to find another solution.

Then you would have to admit nothing Jesus said is real.

And this shows your disconnect. Physical doesn't mean more real and spiritual doesn't mean less real or symbolic. This is where you are faulted in the whole discussion.

I never said "spiritual is not real" or "only the physical is real" you are simply making stuff up - because you have not yet found an answer to the problem where you want to claim that Nicodemus is "not taking the symbol too literally".

The only person "pretending" not to see something is you as you have not answered whether you believe that Jesus holds being born again isn't a substantive change in the individual or not. You've trapped yourself.

Nonsense. Why would you even imagine that I do not consider the new Birth - the birth of the new man in Christ spiritually - as a spiritual reality. What in the world kind of extreme are you going to here? Stick with the actual responses to make your case.

Again spirit does not equal symbolism

Still trying an "Everything but the obvious" response. When A stands for B -- it means that A is a symbol. In this case physical birth is being used as "the symbol" for spiritual regeneration.

And we both know it.

you can't take Jesus at his word for anything thus the body which he says will be offered up in sacrifice must be symbolic.

Jesus said that the BREAD was being given for the world - and that the SYMBOL of bread- stood for His body in the context of the cross. But in the context of eating - we tells us that the SYMBOL of bread stands for teaching - both in John 6:63 AND in Matt 16.

But that is not what Jesus said. And again Matt 16 can find no correlation to John 6 two entirely different discussions.

We call it "exegesis". The same speaker (Christ) speaking to the SAME audience (The disciples) using the SAME symbol (bread) and the act of eating that bread. He explains the symbol BOTH in John 6:63 AND in Matt 16 - and it does not surprise us that in BOTH cases he uses it the SAME way.

You yourself know that this is an incredibly compelling and obvious point for a Baptist considering the Catholic option - BEFORE going hook-line-and-sinker into cradle-catholic mode... and we BOTH know it.

You are limiting man to just the flesh but that is not how God created us we are both flesh and Spirit

I said nothing at all about "just flesh" because I am someone who believes in "Soul sleep" - that the "spirit returns to God who gave it" at death according to Eccl 12. My argument is NOT that the "spirit of man does not exist" as you seem to imagine.

My argument is that EVEN a Baptist is going to see that Nicodemus is taking the symbol of birth too literally when he suggests going back to his mother as the way to address Christ's statement. Christ was speaking of the spiritual reality of regeneration - but using the SYMBOL of physical birth to illustrate the point. Nicodemus could only see the tool-literal physical aspect as an unbeliever.

God told Adam " for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die" but did Adam die in the flesh that day? No in fact " Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." According to the flesh he lived another 930 years. However, we see in that same day when he ate of the fruit " and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God" By the Spiritual mode he died that very day.

I know you think you have a solution here - but as it turns out - Baptists, Catholics and SDAs all agree that there exists the spiritual component of man. And in the case of John 3 Christ is using the symbol of physical birth to represent the reality of the born-again spiritual truth for the saints.

This is not helping your case.

As a Baptist or an SDA. You have a serious Paradigm problem to deal with if you equate Spirit to analogy.

I equate physical birth used as a symbol and analogy for the spiritual reality of regeneration being taught in John 3.

NOT because I don't think physical birth "is real". Your argument is horribly failing at this point. At some point it pays to throw away the shovel my friend.

Here is another problem you face. You mentioned that Jesus doesn't present his flesh to be eaten as some future date. But I while re-reading the passage it became clear to me you missed something.
So he is talking about a future time when he will offer his bread.

He says that in the future He gives his "body for the life of the world" -- he does not say "in the future you must eat the bread -but please don't eat that bread now." There is nothing in John 6 saying "do not eat that bread today" or "I am not yet the bread of heaven - the bread that already came down from heaven". Nor does he say "you do not yet need to eat this bread - in fact please do not eat it now".

Which is s show-stopper for your entire argument from John 6 - at least for a Baptist considering the option of Catholicism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

here is my question for you - especially given that last post above. Suppose that exchange above were had in your former Baptist Sunday school class BEFORE you made the decision to become a Catholic?

Suppose - some OTHER Catholic had come in to present the case - and THEY were trying to tell you as a Baptist that Nicodemus is NOT taking Christ too literally in his response.

Can you with a straight face today - say that at the time you would have gone for such an extreme reach? An extreme that would not even sit well with your fellow Catholics?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christ uses the physical symbol of birth to stand for the spiritual idea of spiritual regeneration. (even Catholics refer to this as a "mark on the soul" and not a Baby being born to its physical mother).

Nicodemus is an unbelieving state in John 3 - so when Christ uses this symbol of Birth - Nicodemus sticks with "physical birth" -- the too literal response of an unbeliever.

Finally we are getting somewhere. The idea of a "spiritual idea" is wrong however. It is a Spiritual reality. Thus its not the idea but the reality which is real in the Spirit. And yes the physical "water" in Nicodemus and "bread" in John 6 are physical symbols of the spiritual reality. Not that bread is a symbol of bread but as Paul says a "sign and a seal". Both water and bread not only symbolizes a spiritual reality. But connect us to that reality. Thus water is part of being born again. And bread that Jesus gives in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. It is the spiritual reality.

Incredibly obvious to any Baptist who is at the point of possibly considering Catholicism but has not yet gone for it hook-line-and-sinker.

Hint - As we all know the "two modes" for physical birth are c-section vs natural child birth. Your effort to bend this is not working.

No because you are limiting the discussion to human flesh. But Jesus says it is by the spirit. Which means a reality greater than physical observation. Man isn't born just of flesh but is born of spirit as well and thus the (for a lack of better term) the mode is by spirit. You are stuck in a carnal mindset not believing the reality of the Spirit. And its the physical substance of water that symbolizes and connects us to the spiritual reality. I'm not putting forth any effort into this concept because age immemorial in The Christian Church this was the belief. I'm not saying anything new. Just putting forth an ancient Christian idea. And hopefully in a way which you can understand.

A cow, a horse, a human, two humans -- or as Nicodemus suggests one human going back to its mother seeking another physical birth - are the obvious physical examples of creatures - adding one, subtracting one, trying to get one to be physically born again etc - if we limit ourselves to the physical as Nicodemus was doing in his too-literal view then that is all we would ever have.

Do you deny that a man is made up of both flesh and spirit? If you reject one or the other then you don't have a complete picture of man? Thus Nicodemus just like you was stuck only in the flesh ignoring the Spirit. Thus he had an incomplete understanding of even the entire human being despite his Jewishness. Jesus put him in contact with his error. Flesh is of the Flesh. But the Spirit is the thing. IT is the reality and when a person is born again of the spirit there is no less an ontological change to the person than was to Adam when he was formed of his flesh and was with out spirit then God breathed into him. And thus man was born.

 

[BobRyan]

Hint - As we all know the "two modes" for physical birth are c-section vs natural child birth. Your effort to bend this is not working.

No because you are limiting the discussion to human flesh. But Jesus says it is by the spirit.

Correction.

1. It is Nicodemus that limits the discussion to the too-literal context of physical literal flesh.

2. Is it You that claims that Nicodemus is not taking this too literally when HE limits it to just physical literal flesh.

3. It is YOU who then claims some other MODE for the idea of literal physical human birth that Nicodemus is talking about - and as every Baptist would know in that Sunday School class of yours -- there are only TWO of those. C-section and natural child birth.

This is a problem for your "Nicodemus is not taking Christ too literally in John 3" solution.

. Man isn't born just of flesh but is born of spirit as well and thus the (for a lack of better term) the mode is by spirit. You are stuck in a carnal mindset not believing the reality of the Spirit.

It is unclear to why you keep making that stuff up. Where do you get that idea???

Do you deny that a man is made up of both flesh and spirit?

err..umm... as I keep saying - "No I do not deny that".

In fact I thought I explained this in detail.

If you reject one or the other then you don't have a complete picture of man?

Ok - but I don't reject either one.

Thus Nicodemus just like you was stuck only in the flesh ignoring the Spirit.

As a Pharisees - Nicodemus believed in both. But to the extent that he was an unbeliever in Christ - he took Christ too literally.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Hint - As we all know the "two modes" for physical birth are c-section vs natural child birth. Your effort to bend this is not working.

Ok - this is just as weird as anything that Ellen White ever wrote.

Does SDA stand for Sort of Delusional Always?

 

[Eliyahu]

I watch TV sometimes and notice RC priest lift up the cookies and chalice, then ask his god to forgive the sins of the people.

He never mentioned all the sins of the world was already forgiven by the precious Blood and Death of Jesus Christ.

He never mentioned that now no more sacrifice is necessary according to Hebrews 10:17-18.

This is the main difference between RC and Christians Faith

Christian Faith is that All the sins were already forgiven at the Cross Once for ALL, by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ.

RC ask their god to forgive their sins by their Eucharist, based on the cookies and chalice lifted by them,
because they don't believe the Eternal Effect of the Forgiveness at the Cross.

For this purpose, they need to make the cookies imprinted with IHS as the body of Jesus and the chalice as the Blood of Jesus

IHS must be the symbol for Isis, Horus Sep, Egyptian or Babylonian gods.

They offer the immitation blood and flesh.

But the True Christians believe and remember the Blood and Death of Jesus by taking the Bread and Wine, and give thanks to Jesus who shed the Blood.

 

[saturneptune]

Here is how to tell the difference. At the Lord's Supper, one will her "Do this in rememberence of Me." At the Catholic Eucharist, one will hear "now, for my next trick...."