Catholic Inventions?

[DHK]

Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:13-16 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Jesus spoke in parables, symbolically, metaphorically often, and for good reason. Sometimes he would explain what he meant. Read Matthew 13, a chapter full of parables, and note that the first few parables he gives an explanation. But the last few parables he doesn't have to give the meaning. The disciples by that time understand what he is talking about.
"Understandest thou these thihgs?"
"Yea, Lord we understand."
There was no interpretation needed.

Separate the audience. The Phairsees, Sadducees, scribes, general populace, and even uncommitted disciples did not follow Jesus, nor did they want to keep his Word. The disciples that were close to him understood what he meant when he spoke metaphorically or figuratively. They knew that he wasn't speaking literally because they had been exposed to his teaching day in and day out. He spoke to them plainly. He made sure that they understood his meaning. If they didn't understand he would have told the. Obviuosly, from what is written in John 6, the disciples understood exactly what Jesus meant. They didn't need to question him. Those that walked away were not committed disciples.
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

Obviuosly, from what is written in John 6, the disciples understood exactly what Jesus meant. They didn't need to question him. Those that walked away were not committed disciples.

Yes, they knew he was speaking literally and not metaphorically. The Bible states his disciples said, "this is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

Jesus answered, "Doth this offend you?"

Jesus did not say clear up the misunderstanding because there wasn't any. He spoke literally and the disciples knew it.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Yes, they knew he was speaking literally and not metaphorically. The Bible states his disciples said, "this is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

Jesus answered, "Doth this offend you?"

Jesus did not say clear up the misunderstanding because there wasn't any. He spoke literally and the disciples knew it.

Matthew 13:13-16 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

It is doubtful that the Pharisees and Saduccees understood his words. Jesus says as much right here.

The general populace were not interested in understanding his words:
John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
They were greedy for bread, even eternal bread, but without sacrifice. They didn't believe what Jesus said. They remained in their unbelief, not for a lack of understanding, but because of unbelief.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Had they been interested in understanding the Words of Jesus, they would have believed them, and thus understood them. But they were not intersted in understanding. They remained in unbelief and in ignorance.

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
--Pure unbelief. Unbelief that he was the Messiah, unlike the disciples, who believed that he was the Messiah. If you don't believe in the deity of Christ, you won't understand the words that he is saying. That is plain and simple. This is what Jesus said at the outset. Their hearts were hardened that they would not believe, therefore he spoke to them in parables.

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--No belief; no understanding.

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
--Even those that had previously followed him up to this point were not willing to accept the teaching that he was giving now. It was a hard saying. It would foretell of his death, and their participation in his sufferings. Who wants to look forward to suffering? This is a hard saying.

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
--Unblelief results in noncomittal.

This is an hard saying. The word hard here means offensive, disagreeable --that which they could not bear. Some have understood it to mean "difficult to be understood," but this meaning does not suit the connection. The doctrine which he delivered was opposed to their prejudices; it seemed to be absurd, and they therefore rejected it.

Saying. Rather doctrine or speech--Greek, logos. It does not refer to any particular part of the discourse, but includes the whole.

Who can hear it? That is, who can hear it patiently--who can stay and listen to such doctrine or believe it. The effect of this is stated in Joh 6:66. The doctrines which Jesus taught that were so offensive appear to have been,

1st. That he was superior to Moses.

2nd. That God would save all that he had chosen, and those only.

3rd. That he said he was the bread that came from heaven.

4th. That it was necessary to partake of that; or that it was necessary that an atonement should be made, and that they should be saved by that. These doctrines have always been among the most offensive that men have been called on to believe, and many, rather than trust in them, have chosen to draw back to perdition.

Barnes
"This is a hard saying, who can hear it."
The statement has nothing to do with "transubstantiation, but everything to do with following Christ, and the claims of Christ to deity, and his coming sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"This is not good hermeneutics, nor is it rightly dividing the Word of truth. You are able to apply spiritual truth in one place, but not in another. Why are you not able to be consistent?"

I think we all know. The Catholic...just like the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons and multitudes of other cults...is stripped of the privilege that all the rest of us are not stripped of...

Using the good mind God gave us to think for ourselves.

They are commanded by their all knowing and all seeing "Hierarchy" that they are forbidden to ever disagree with any doctrinal view that they decide is true.

Because of course...supposedly...The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church are the only human beings on earth capable of correctly understanding the scriptures.

Its the age old tactic employed by multitudes of groups in order to keep the masses compliantly in their death grip.

David Koresh, Jim Jones, the JW's and Mormons have nothing on these guys.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK:
Matthew 13:13-16 Therefore speak I to them in parables...[blah, blah, blah...]

Jesus spoke in parables, symbolically, metaphorically often, and for good reason...
[blah, blah, blah...]

(Never mind that in John 6 Christ is not speaking in parables. This has been easily demonstrated from the context by different posters numerous times, but that doesn't keep you from repeating "parable(!), metaphor(!), symbol(!)" over and over and over...((sigh)).."oh well"... )

D28:
I think we all know. The Catholic...just like the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons and multitudes of other cults...[blah, blah, blah...]

David Koresh, Jim Jones, the JW's and Mormons...[blah, blah, blah...]

(So it always come back to Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Mormons, and JWS...((yawn))...)

D28 and DHK,
Seriously--It's really time for y'all to come up with some new material. (But I suppose you're just trying to win the argument by attrition rather than actually proving your point)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />DHK:
Matthew 13:13-16 Therefore speak I to them in parables...[blah, blah, blah...]

Jesus spoke in parables, symbolically, metaphorically often, and for good reason...
[blah, blah, blah...]

(Never mind that in John 6 Christ is not speaking in parables. This has been easily demonstrated from the context by different posters numerous times, but that doesn't keep you from repeating "parable(!), metaphor(!), symbol(!)" over and over and over...((sigh)).."oh well"... )</font>[/QUOTE]Define parable.
Define metaphor.
Explain to me the difference. Be technical.
Now go back and take a literature course.

D28:
I think we all know. The Catholic...just like the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons and multitudes of other cults...[blah, blah, blah...]

David Koresh, Jim Jones, the JW's and Mormons...[blah, blah, blah...]

(So it always come back to Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Mormons, and JWS...((yawn))...)

D28 and DHK,
Seriously--It's really time for y'all to come up with some new material. (But I suppose you're just trying to win the argument by attrition rather than actually proving your point)

We come back to the Bible every time--something you seem unable to refute. Why not try believing it sometime.
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

Using the good mind God gave us to think for ourselves.

Guess what?! Using the good mind that God gave me, I understood at the age of 8 that Jesus was speaking literally.

I'm ashamed that it took me soooo long to take God at His Word.

I remember the statement that we learned in school, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

I guess they forgot to add unless it has to do with the Real Presence and Baptism.

Take a good look at John 6.
Jesus states plainly no less than 9 times that he is being literally.

Also He didn't say at the Last Supper, "This represents my body" "this is a symbol of my blood"

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Using the good mind God gave us to think for ourselves.

Guess what?! Using the good mind that God gave me, I understood at the age of 8 that Jesus was speaking literally.
</font>[/QUOTE]That's too bad. Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and many other cults and false religions use their minds also. But none of them use the Bible. God gave us our minds to glorify Him, not ourselves, to learn about Him, not about ourselves. When you apply your mind to the Word of God instead of the word of the Magesterium, then perhaps God will give you understanding.
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

DHK,

It doesn't appear to matter what I say because you are going to disagree with me.

When you apply your mind to the Word of God instead of the word of the Magesterium, then perhaps God will give you understanding.

When I was 8, I didn't have any contact with anything Catholic.

GASP! I was raised in a Bible thumping, Hell Fire/Brimstone, Bible only, all catholics are going to hell type of environment.

 

[DHK]

L4H, Perhaps then, you ought to get past the thinking of an 8 year old, and get on with the meat of the word of God.

If you were raised in a church that was based on the Bible, what would cause you to switch to a church that is based on man-made doctrines, that are totally unproveable in the Bible; doctrines that take away from the grace of God; doctrines that deny salvation through grace by faith; doctrines that say that Jesus death was not necessary or sufficent for our sins.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Since we are still on this subject that "Catholics can't talk about" -- here the points are 'again' from John 6 that Catholics "need to run away from".

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3286/8.html#000108

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"Details" typically ignored in the Catholic argument --

#1. In John 6 Christ DOES NOT say "some day in the future my FLESH WILL become food" nor "some day in the not too distant future my blood WILL BECOME drink"!! He argues that IT ALREADY IS!! Right then and THERE that the bread ALREADY came down from heaven AND ALREADY those who would have eternal life must be eating His Flesh!!

The RC argument "NEEDS" the text to say "SOME day in the NEAR future my flesh WILL become food for you to really eat". It does not!!

#2. Christ is on record as chastizing the disciples for taking the symbol of bread TOO LITERALLY!! IN Matt 16 He argues that it represents TEACHING and they thought it was REALLY BREAD!!

#3. ONLY the FAITHLESS discples of John 6 take him soooo literally that they think they must BITE CHRIST!!

#4. Christ HIMSELF offers the "interpretation" by saying that LITERAL FLESH "is WORTHLESS" when eaten -- but it is HIS WORD digested in the soul that has REAL true LIFE!!.

#5. In the entire John 6 discussion the ENTIRE POINT of the Flesh and blood is to gain "LIFE". Then Christ shows that for gaining LIFE - ONLY HIS WORD has SPIRIT AND LIFE and that literal flesh is WORTHLESS (in terms of literally eating something and having it make you live forever)!!

#7 In John 1 - the CONTEXT is established "THE WORD BECAME FLESH" in John 6 the point is made again that the BREAD of heaven CAME DOWN as in the case of manna in the days of Moses. (Where we see that EVEN Moses argues the point using the SAME symbol of BREAD coming down from heaven - "MAN shall NOT live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the Mouth of God" Deut 8:3]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Deut 8:3
3 "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

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]Too bad they have to fear the "details" connected with John 6 while trying to make a point from John 6.

Must be hard to get those blinders on every morning when they wake up.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[TP]

Greetings,

My translation: Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

Response: Bread that I WILL give. This looks like future tense to me.

peace

 

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: LITERAL FLESH "is WORTHLESS"

Response: I find your addition to the scripture interesting. You add the word 'literal'. There is a distinction between Jesus' flesh(he says MY FLESH), and The Flesh(represents the world opposed to spirit). It never says "literal" flesh in the text.

peace

 

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: In the entire John 6 discussion the ENTIRE POINT of the Flesh and blood is to gain "LIFE".

Response: You are correct the point is to gain LIFE. That is why we eat his flesh and drink his blood: To receive life. This must be DONE in fact.

Go to the book of Leviticus and read about the PROHIBITION from drinking blood. We cannot drink the blood of the animal because the LIFE of the animal is in the blood. It explains this. The life of the animal found in the blood would LOWER us humans to the level of the animal, that is why we cannot drink blood. If life is in the blood, then in Drinking blood of Christ, We are filled with HIS life, Divine life, which is the reason for the text. Jesus Came that we may have life and have it abundantly. Animal blood forbidden as it lowers us to animals, Jesus Blood necessary for it gives us his own divine life and raises us up.

peace

 

[TP]

Greetings,

To get to your interpretation it gets pretty convoluted. To us catholics: You must eat my flesh and drink my blood, repeated 5 times MEANs: You must eat my flesh and drink my blood. We take Jesus on his word. Just like when he says: This is MY Body and This is my Blood at the last supper. Jesus says it, I believe it. Pretty simple. Not many Interpretation manuevers there.

peace

 

[Bro. James]

Pretty simple: when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood", He had not yet been scourged and crucified. There is something symbolic here: "this do in remembrance of me".

No "ordained" priest needed.

No convolution--nor "sacramentum" either.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Bro. James]

Pretty simple: when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood", He had not yet been scourged and crucified. There is something symbolic here: "this do in remembrance of me".

No "ordained" priest needed.

No convolution--nor "sacramentum" either.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: this do in remembrance of me".

Response: actually, if you do an OT study of that phrase it is actually a sacrificial phrase. It is connected with sacrifices of the Old testament. This is one of the things that point to this last supper as a sacrifice connected to the cross as sacrifice: Last supper + Cross+ resurrection=Mass. This is how Christians TODAY participate in the paschal mystery of 2000 years ago

peace

 

[Bro. James]

It is written: "Jesus is the Lamb of God, slain from before the foundation of the world".

If Jesus was sacrificed before the Fall of Adam, who was performing the Mass under the Old Covenant? While there are many "types" of Jesus in the OT, no one was "eating His body or drinking His blood--real or imagined. That was a pagan practice, however, still is.
There were millions of gallons of "animal blood" shed in the OT sacrifices by Israel--not one drop washed away one sin.(Not one drop was drunk either)

Now we see Jesus--the Redeemer--on the tree on Golgotha. He said,"It is finished". His was the only blood which could settle the "Sin" debt--which Jesus paid in full--once for all.

Why do myriads of people in this world try to repeat this "once for all" sacrifice? They believe they "eat and drink Jesus" daily.

Jesus' body is not still bleeding on a "tree". His blood is on the mercy seat--in heaven. He is sitting on His throne to the right of The Father--Jesus, the only intercessor for His children.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[TP]

Greetings,

However, Jesus is a priest in the Order of Melchizedek. He is the First Person EVER CAlled a priest in the OT. What was the first Sacrificed offered by someone called a priest? Bread and wine. Here did he offer it? Salem, later called Jerusalem. Jesus is in order of Melchidek who offered a sacrifice of bread and wine AND his body and blood. They are the same sacrifice.

Also, you said: It is written: "Jesus is the Lamb of God, slain from before the foundation of the world".

Response: could you please give this verse for this. I would like to read the context.

peace