Catholic Inventions?

This does not solve your problems because in "the detail" of the quote we SEE the very point raised here against the RCC position. That the text is using SYMBOLS and metaphors with the SUBSTANCE being the WORD of Christ -

This is shown with BOTH Tertullian and Clement!

Instead of taking that quote IN DETAIL and responding to it - you avoided it ENTIRELY and said "he was an allegorist" as IF that has some "power" to undo the devastating DETAILS IN the quote.

HE says the text is using symbols!! How can you get around that to mean "the TEXT IS NOT using symbols"??

You have a problem that does not go away by claiming that "he is an allegorist".

"The text is using symbols" is not an "allegorical statement". It is a LITERAL statement about what the text is doing.

If anything a tendancy to SEE allegory in the text would only exacerbate the fact that he SEES it as symbol and metaphor and NOT a literal statement about biting Christ that day!

Your "mix-and-merge" fallacy incorporates the subject of the "real presence" into John 6. But in John 6 Christ does NOT make the argument "I am NOT really PRESENT here unless you bite me". He is NOT arguing that His presence is only made REAL by biting Him - since He is REALLY STANDING THERE talking to them at the time!

Your attempt to obfuscate the clear POV of Clement and Tertullian on their views of John 6 with statements about the "real presence" is bringing IN an idea to chapter 6 that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the chapter!!

This is the problem with the RC habbit of eisegeting what "it needs" into the text instead of paying attention to the devastating details actually IN the text. Details so "helpful" to exegesis and so disasterous to eisegesis.

In Christ,

bob

 

Please "show" that in John 6 Christ makes ANY REFERENCE AT ALL to the subject of "His PRESENCE" not being there until bitten!

He argues that HE IS ALREADY THERE - the bread ALREADY came down out of heaven.

He never argues "I am not really here - until you bite me" in John 6.

The entire "real presence" topic is completely missing from John 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This does not solve your problems because in "the detail" of the quote we SEE the very point raised here against the RCC position. That the text is using SYMBOLS and metaphors with the SUBSTANCE being the WORD of Christ - </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, my explanation shows that there is no problem. You're the one not paying attention to what I've said. Clement expressed belief in the real presence in other of his writings dealing with the Eucharist. It is a fact that as an allegorist he often gave multiple meanings to the same passage. (And you seem narrowly focused on the one allegorical meaning to try to prove your point to the exclusion of what else he wrote on the subject). It is clear that in his other statements he affirmed the plain meaning at well--that the bread and wine are the means by which we are truly nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ.

Once again you are ignoring the fact that, not only did both men elsewhere affirm the real presence, but that by using the word symbol back then it was meant that there was a real unity between the sign and the reality signified. That's why the same fathers can talk both of the bread and blood being "symbols" and being the real body and blood of Christ. You focus on the former as if it proves your point while ignoring the latter. I mentioned this in my post yesterday at 5:10 PM. It seems you have chosen to ignore this fact as well and continue to quote these two men selectively.

The "details" are not devastating when you consider them in context with: (1)what else he said on the subject; and (2)that he was in fact an allegorist taking multiple meanings from a given passage. These are the "details" you persist in ignoring.

I'm not trying too. You just fail to apprehend how the word "symbol" was used back in that time period by the Fathers. It meant an actual connection between the sign and the thing signified in which the sign actually makes present the reality it conveys.

I'm not the one who has the problem. The fact your ignoring all my points about context shows that the problem lies with your position.

But in the context of everything I just said, the text is not only using "symbols". In his allegorical interpretation of the passage, Clement indeed saw metaphors. Elsewhere, he affirmed the truth of the real presence, the plain meaning and common understanding of that passage.

Bob, I'm not the one "obfuscating the clear POV of Clement and Tertullian" by selectively quoting them out of context (of their other writings). That's what you are doing.

 

:

Actually I think you are not paying attention to the devastating problem against the RCC position as pointed out IN THE DETAILS of the John 6 text (listed and enumarated and faithfully avoided by the RCC posters) AND ALSO the DETAILS of the quote from Clement ABOUT John 6!!

You are trying a "misdirection" tactic - going AWAY from Clement on John 6 and speaking INSTEAD on the view of Clement during the Lord's Supper during passion week!

This is a classic bait and switch presented AS IF it is a direct response to the problem you have in John 6.

It is not!

The problem is COMPOUNDED by the fact that Clement does NOT use the John 6 argument for the real presence SINCE he has argued that in John 6 these are SYMBOLS!!

With John 6 as the CONTEXT for the Lord's Supper (a point Catholics always like to make) their Eucharist argument VANISHES once it is admitted that John 6 is SYMBOLIC of the WORD of Christ!!

That means that it directs the discussion during the Lord's supper to the SAME SYMBOL!!

Huge problem for Catholicism!!

The fact that Clement helps create that problem for you - does not SOLVE your problem at all!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

The problem is that this source ignores the details given in John 6 showing the "context" that Christ referenced for Deut 8:3 as the meaning for the symbol of bread coming down from heaven.

AS has been pointed out - the DETAILS listed in John 6 -- and even enumerated here - are avoided like the plague in order to cling to the Catholic doctrine 'anyway'.

That is hardly a tactic that a non-Cathoic is going to be able to adopt.

Agreed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do not doubt that there are many cleaver and entertaining ways for the RC posters to ignore the details of John 6 as enumerated previously - I just point out that "they do it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christ appeals to this SAME symbol in John 6 -- bread coming down out of heaven AS in the days of Moses!

#8. When Peter speaks about the faithful disciple’s view in John 6:68 he simply RESTATES Christ’s OWN interpretation given in vs 63 saying “YOU have the Words of LIFE” – he says nothing about “we have decided to stay and bite you” as instructed. NOR does he say “we have decided to stay and WAIT for that FUTURE day when you WILL have life in your flesh so we can bite it”.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

I never stated that the Catholic Church developed all these theologies.

However, what I was implying is that if you reject the word "Eucharist" which is used for the Real Presence as Jesus stated in John Chapter 6, then you should reject all those other terms.

While the word(s) is/are not in the Bible (as you pointed out)then one should be suspicious of these terms, using your own reasoning with regard to the word Eucharist. </font>[/QUOTE]Your logic is found wanting.
There is no Eucharist in the Bible--not the term, nor the doctrine which it represents. There is no doctrine of transubstantiation in the Bible. Thus you have to invent your own terminology to try to prop up a fictitious doctrine, a man-made doctrine, just like many other man-made doctrines of tha man-made religion of the Catholic Church.

The doctrine of the trinity, however, is clearly taught and upheld in the Bible. The deity of Christ is well established in the Bible. The deity of the Holy Spirit is well established in the Bible. That there is only one God is well established in the Bible. i John 5:7 makes it abundantly clear that these three are one. There is no quarrel that the word that we use, "trinity" to define what the Bible has already described for us, is taught in the Bible.

We are speaking of doctrine, theological concepts. Transubstantiation is one of them. It is not in the Bible. Neither is the Eucharist, an idea invented by the Catholic Church to uphold this pet doctrine of theirs.
DHK

 

Two important points in what "little" time you allowed yourself to LOOK at ANY detail in John 6 --

#1. You only quote the faithLESS disciples. ONLY THEY make your case!! Interesting how the words of "pope Peter" are of no value to you in John 6!! But the faithLESS disciples - THEY have real benefit for the RC doctrine there.

#2. You do not make ANY response to the point that this was not a FUTURE "eating of his Flesh" but a PRESENT ONE!! HE does not say "SOME day IN THE FUTURE you WILL THEN have to eat My flesh to have eternal life" --

Neither do you address ANY of the enumerated points listed for John 6!!!

How "unnexpected" -

The thrust of your response above is to gloss over Johh 6 and focus primarily on the Lord's Supper AS IF your problems in John 6 HAD ALL GONE YOUR WAY!!

They did not.

But other than that -- it is a good tactic given the position you are in.

Particularly given that BOTH Tertullian AND Clement ADMIT that John 6 is SYMBOLISM!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

What “details” must be faithfully ignored in John 6 to hold to the RC doctrine on eating the Flesh of Christ?

What “details” in the book of John itself must be ignored to hold to the RC teaching on eating the Flesh of Christ?

All of these steps to ignore what is in the chapter must be combined to cut-and-paste from the chapter in snippets and still get what the RCC “needs” to find..

But - it must be noted that many will not take those steps to ignore all those details. What then? What if someone is paying attention to the details above?
How will the case be made for the Eucharist from John 6 in that situation?

 

Not the first time the Disciples got something wrong - taking Christ too literally.

Matt 16:6And Jesus said to them, ";Watch out and beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees and Sadducees."; 7They began to discuss this among themselves,
saying, ";He said that because we did not bring any bread.";

Here the disciples engage in the error of taking the symbol of bread
and yeast literally.

Matt 16:8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, ";You men of little faith,
why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9";
Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand,
and how many baskets full you picked up? 10";Or the seven loaves of the
four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11";How is it
that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?
But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.";

Matt 16:12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the
leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The point is ONCE AGAIN Abundantly clear - though Christ uses BREAD
symbols yet ;"I did not speak to you concerning (LITERAL) bread

 

What did the primary audience know about "bread" and "flesh" and "manna"?


In the book of John the reader STARTs with the definition for FLESH - that is WORD. The WORD became FLESH (– came down out of heaven )- John 1:14.

And from as far back as Deut 8:3 the primary audience of John's day knew -- the lesson that BREAD from heaven - was a symbol for WORD - specifically MANNA.

IN John 6 ITSELF -- Christ makes the SAME point appealing to the lesson of MANNA in John 6:32.

In Matt 16:6-12 Christ rebukes the Discisples for taking the term BREAD TOO LITERALLY - it means "TEACHING" - He said.

IN John 6:59-69 BOTH CHrist and Peter draw the SAME conclusion
"The FLESH PROFITS NOTHING -- it is the WORD that has spirit and life".

Peter says "YOU HAVE the Words of Life"

The entire point of the dialogue was LIFE vs DEATH.

So what IS the symbol of BREAD about in John 6??
John 6:63 "literal Flesh is worthless MY WORDS are SPIRIT and are LIFE".
John 6:68 "YOU have the WORDS of LIFE"..
So you know what that means? Nobody was taking a bite out of Christ's arm that day!!
Matt 16:11 "How is it you did NOT understand I was not speaking to you about LITERAL bread...but about the TEACHING of the Pharisees"??
John 6:51 "I AM the LIVING BREAD"
John 1:1 "IN the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God". – And the “WORD became FLESH” John 1:14
John 6:50 "THIS IS THE BREAD that comes down out of HEAVEN"
Deut 8:3 "HE fed you with BREAD from HEAVEN... so that you might understand that man does not LIVE by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God"

 

Notice the heresy implied or inferred from the Bible. Please note that the Bible does not teach heresy, but the Catholic Church does, thus the contradition in L4H's thinking.

"Jesus next instituted the Catholic priesthood."
What a joke that is. Jesus never instituted the corrupt Catholic priesthood. The only priesthood that was ever presented was the priesthood of the believer, where every believer is a piest before God. Look how totally anti-God; anti-Biblical this Catholic concept of an earthly hierarchal priesthood really is:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
--This wasn't written to Catholic priests. This was Peter writing to:
"the elect" scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

John said:
Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul writing to Timothy:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
--There is only one mediator, one "priest" so to speak, that man may to in order to intercede on his behalf, and that is Jesus Christ Himself. To say that there is any other "priesthood" such as the "Catholic Priesthood" is blasphemous. Every believer is a priest is a priest before God, with Christ being our Great High Priest:

Hebrews 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Catholic Priesthood is anti-God. It spits in the face of God, and all that Christ has done on the cross. Christ did away with the priesthood on the cross. He alone is our mediator.
DHK

 

First, I don't see any link to his website.
Second, From what you have posted there is Biblical material that relates Old Testament events such as the Passover to Christ. So far so good.
Then, because of his conversion to Catholicism, he relates those same events to Catholicism. How ingenious. A Muslim could do the same thing. Relate the events of the Old Testament to his conversion to Islam. There is nothing new there.
DHK

 

So, Bob, if the "flesh is worthless" in the way you are suggesting Christ meant, why did He become flesh? In fact, had Christ not become flesh we wouldn't be saved. Christ died in the flesh; rose in the flesh; and ascended in the flesh. Surely you're not suggesting that Christ thought that His physical flesh was worthless. If so, you might as well become a gnostic--they thought the physical flesh was worthless as well. You might want to consider what Christ meant here again. (Here's a hint: "flesh" as meaning "carnal" being opposed to "spiritual"--not His physical flesh as opposed to metaphor--is what Christ is talking about there. The unbelieving Jews were thinking carnally not with the spiritual eyes of faith. However, once again, "spiritual" does not equal "metaphorical". God and the angels are spiritual and are real, not "metaphorical".)

 

I hope you don't mind if I just stick to the "incredibly obvious" when answering this question.

In John 6 Christ was using the SYMBOLISM of "eating FLESH" to gain eternal life. (Symbolism according to Clement and Tertullian of course).

In Christ's own summary HE argues that it is silly to take this SYMBOL literally "AS IF" eating somebody will give you eternal life!!

RATHER Christ's point was the SAME as HE ALREADY made in Deut 8:3 regarding the BREAD that CAME DOWN out of HEAVEN "man shall NOT live by BREAD eating alone - but BY EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

Hence the PARALLEL statement made in John 6 AFTER pointing to that SAME example of BREAD coming down out of heaven - eating "LITERAL FLESH Is POINTLESS - rather MY WORDS give real Spirit and LIFE"!!

How obvious - how simple and direct!

ONLY the faithLESS disciples of John 6 would construe this to a kind of "cannibalism".

Good thing WE are not of the faithLESS group in John 6 - eh?

In Christ,

Bob