1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Catholic Inventions?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Living4Him, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. Melanie

    Melanie Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,784
    Likes Received:
    7
    As usual Bob has gone on and on about a selected biblical quote which his denomination has seen fit to exclude from the Bible and ignores the fact there were several other quotes cited.

    It seems to me that it is a case I will select what I am comfortable with Lord but I will ignore what I WILL not.

    In response to the above by DHK you prefer the history as written by the anti-catholics who write what they want to read rather than the truth.
    Get real human beings are flawed critturs and the unpalatable facts are always sugar coated, faults lie with all creeds and denominations.

    B-G
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Deal with Scripture. You can't refute the Scriptures can you. John 6 is filled with metaphors includint "This is my flesh, eat ye it." "This is my blood..."
    Is it literal or symbolic? Is it a metaphor? Obciously a metaphor. I was challenged to show any hint of a similie or a metaphor in John 6. The person who gave me that challenge was evidently ignorant as to what a metaphor was. I posted all the metaphors in the chapter. And yet you refuse to believe.
    Jesus said: "You will die in your unbelief."

    Consider again these metaphors:
    Ye are the salt of the earth.
    I am the bread of life.
    This is my body.
    This is by blood.

    Put it all on the table.
    What a feast we could have.

    What kind of bread would it be when Jesus said:
    Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees?

    Perhaps the tastiest part would be the salt. Or, no, that would be the most corrupted wouldn't it?
    DHK
     
  3. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may be a product of the Tennessee School system, but I do have more that 7 years education and I do know what a simile is and there is not one simile in John Chapter 6. IF Jesus would’ve said, “my body is LIKE bread”, then we have a simile.

    If you take John 6:35 and you isolate the phrase I am the bread of life… you will have a metaphor, but come on DHK, I’ve been a Fundamentalists since I was knee high to a grasshopper and we Fundamentalists never isolate a verse and create a doctrine out of it. We slam the JWs, Mormons and the SDAs for that. We always take the verse in its full context and let Scripture explain Scripture.

    In addition, our Lord takes John 6 far beyond just a metaphor in verse 35 by saying, For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.


    And I don’t deny that Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphors, but John 6 was a sermon, not a parable and IF it were a parable Jesus would’ve alluded as such, as he had always done in the past. His disciples had been with Jesus for sometime now and had witnessed Him preach and even here His disciples mummer amongst themselves. So again, I don’t believe Jesus would’ve let any of His disciples leave over a little misunderstanding over a metaphor for crying out loud.


    If Jesus was talking of spiritual food, then Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 didn’t receive the memo, because Paul forgot to include the phrase spiritual food. Also, IF the writers of the bible wanted to make it known that the Lord’s Supper was a purely spiritual sacrament, and then the message didn’t get across until the Reformation, because not one early Church father denied the Real Presence, but endorsed it.

    They left because they realized that Jesus was being serious about His flesh being food indeed and His blood being drink indeed. Eating flesh and drinking blood went against what Moses had taught, and their thinking was on a human level. John 6:63 flesh profits nothing refers to human understanding, to think on a human level instead of a spiritual one. Jesus would not command us to eat His flesh, but then say His flesh is useless. Otherwise, the Incarnation is useless as well. Jesus became man in the flesh, died in the flesh, and rose in the flesh. He saved us by His fleshand it is the method He chose for our salvation: the Cross.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No argument. But that is not what the Scripture says.
    So demonstrate to me where I am doing that. I just finished demonstrating that I didn't isolate anything by taking the entire chapter and show how Jesus used one metaphor after another consistently throughout the whole chapter. How can you even infer that it is an isolated case. The whole passage that you are referring to is filled with metaphors and symbolic language. Do you really think that Jesus is saying: "Here, I am a cannibal. I expect you to be one too. Take a chunk of my flesh and eat it." Are you that literal. Are you also a Catholic John?

    Obviously it is more metaphorical or symbolic language. Else how would you understand it? Is his flesh food to eat. When did you eat a chunk of the flesh of Christ? Were you there 2,000 years ago to do that? Tell me about it. Did you have it medium rare, or well done?
    Jesus didn't always indicate when he was speaking in either parables or metaphors. That is a false assumption your part. You need to study your Bible more. Yes, it may be a sermon, or at least part of sermon. Does that limit Christ to strictly literal speech? Is one not allowed to use figures of speech in a sermon? Did Jesus say: "It is easier for a camel to through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." What do you call the "eye of a needle?" This also is a figure of speech. But in what context was it used?
    Why are you trying to confine and restrict the kind of language Jesus uses?
    Those disciples that left him, left him because they didn't want to follow the teachings that he was giving. It was too difficult for them to bear.

    John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
    --They left for this reason. They say it is a hard saying. The expression "Who can hear it?" means who is able to obey it. They didn't want to accept and obey what he had to say. Therefore they left.
    You must be a Catholic.
    There are no sacraments in Scripture.
    There are two ordinances that Christ gave to the church: baptism and the Lord's Table. A sacrament gives grace. One doesn't gain grace by means of baptism or the Lord's Table. They are commands given by the Lord for the church to obey.

    As for 1Cor.10:16
    1 Corinthians 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?
    --The word "communion" simply means "fellowship."
    We fellowship one with another around the Lord's Table, as believers. Check the context. Then go to 1Cor.11 and see that the elements simply reflect in a symbolic way the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are to remember his death through partaking of them. It is not for physical food. If you want a meal, Paul rebuked them and told them that they had houses to eat in. The Lord's house (the church) was not for a meal. It was for spiritual food, that is, the Word of God. It was for remembering the death and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Nice thoughts but that is not what the Scripture says.
    John 6:60-61 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

    They were offended at his teaching. They left because his teaching offended them. It was too difficult for them to follow. It required sacrifice, something that they were unwilling to do.

    John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
    --Unbelief also was a big factor.
    DHK
     
  5. Living4Him

    Living4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Baptism - Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22).

    John 3:5, Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

    The great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

    2. Penance - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.

    This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).

    3. Confirmation - The sacrament of confirmation is found in Bible passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, which speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit.

    Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it is not a narrative account of how confirmation was given and, thus, cannot be dismissed by those who reject the sacrament as something unique to the apostolic age. In fact, the passage refers to confirmation as one of Christianity’s basic teachings, which is to be expected since confirmation, like baptism, is a sacrament of initiation into the Christian life.

    We read: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1–2).

    4. Holy Eucharist - John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
    Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

    His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
    Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

    On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

    In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

    But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).


    5. Anointing of the Sick - The anointing of the sick is administered to bring spiritual and even physical strength during an illness, especially near the time of death. It is most likely one of the last sacraments one will receive. A sacrament is an outward sign established by Jesus Christ to confer inward grace. In more basic terms, it is a rite that is performed to convey God’s grace to the recipient, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
    Like all the sacraments, holy anointing was instituted by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. The Catechism explains, "This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord" (CCC 1511; Mark 6:13; Jas. 5:14-15).

    The anointing of the sick conveys several graces and imparts gifts of strengthening in the Holy Spirit against anxiety, discouragement, and temptation, and conveys peace and fortitude (CCC 1520). These graces flow from the atoning death of Jesus Christ, for "this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’" (Matt. 8:17).

    Mark refers to the sacrament when he recounts how Jesus sent out the twelve disciples to preach, and "they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them" (Mark 6:13). In his epistle, James says, "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (Jas. 5:14–15).

    6. Holy Matrimony - When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.

    He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

    7. Holy Orders -Jesus Christ gave full authority to the Apostles when in Lk 10:16, He said, "He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me; and he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me." We hear His words through His Church. Therefore these words have to apply to His Church as well, 'he who rejects My Church rejects Me'. That verse also prevents the Pope from teaching heresy, so when the Pope speaks in matters of faith and morals, he is speaking as Christ would and with His authority. Paul acknowledged the authority given to the Apostles in 2Cor 10:8, "For even if I boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord has given for your upbuilding, and not for your destruction, I shall not be put to shame."

    Jesus gave authority to 72 other disciples in Lk 10:1-12, and told them He sends them forth as 'lambs in the midst of wolves'. He told them to shake the dust off their feet from the towns that do not receive them.

    Knowing of course, that the Apostles would not live forever, and that His Church would continue until the 'end of time'
    (Mt 28:20), Jesus Christ made provision to pass on the authority from generation to generation...
    "I laid the foundation, and another builds thereon. But let everyone take care how he builds thereon, for other foundations no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1Cor 3:10-11. So there will be followers who will build upon the foundation.

    2. "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and have appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain...," Jn 15:16.

    3. "...that you should set right anything that is defective and should appoint presbyters (priests) in every city as I myself directed you to do," Titus 1:5. Paul commands them to make new priests.

    4. "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as Bishops to rule the Church of GOD," Acts 20:28. Here the Bishops are given the authority by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

    5. "And now I commend you to GOD and to the word of His grace, who is able to build up and to give the inheritance among all the sanctified," Acts 20:32. Pass on the authority to your heirs.

    6. The Pope and the Bishops are the lawful successors to the Apostles. If we reject their authority, then we reject Christ.
     
  6. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    In John 6:63, Christ said to words I speak to you are "spirit", not the words I speak to you are "symbol" or "metaphor". In this way, and in context with the rest of the passage (and the rest of Scripture), Christ is speaking of receiving His Body and Blood in the Eucharist through the eyes of faith as opposed to the two extremes of crass literal cannibalism on one hand (as the unbelieving Jews understood Him), and mere metaphor on the other (as the Zwinglians and their modern-day followers would mistakenly believe).
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I see that you do that - but I can't explain why.

    As for "other texts" -- you have yet to respond to the devastating case made against the RC doctrinal position from the "details" of 2Macc2.
    (Ignoring the inconvenient facts in favor of holding on to a good story?)

    AT this point - the record shows that no text has been offerred SHOWING prayers TO the dead or prayers FOR THE dead in the 66 books of scripture.

    OF the ONE text (and there has been only one) put forward by the RC posters for a prayer offerred FOR The DEAD - it was SHOWN in the DETAILS of that quote (2MACC) that even the RCC would deny it because it is praing FOR those who have died with mortal sin (idolarty - worhsip of pagan gods). It was ALSO shown that EVEN there those praying FOR The dead ADMIT that their prayers have no value at all to the dead WHILE DEAD!

    "details details".

    In any case - I thank you for being willing to discuss facts even if at a great distance.

    When you have an objective moment - why not pass on the points raised about 2Macc and see if anyone in your sphere of contacts can actually address the points? It would be nice to see someone to take an honest shot at responding.

    (Not arguing that you are not honest - just pointing out that your interest has been more along the lines of being "defensive no matter what" rather than dealing with the points made. For the sake of dialog and communication it would still be nice to see an RC source "carefully and objectively respond")

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    You seem to be confused. Is it not obvious that the metaphorical words that he spoke (symbolical words) had obvious spiritual meaning? Did not every parable that Jesus taught give out teach spiritual truth? Why is it so hard to see that Jesus teaches spiritual truth in symbolical language. Or, are you a gnostic claiming to have some spiritual knowledge that no one else can attain to because you alone have the key to this spiritual truth??
    DHK
     
  9. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    It's obvious to me and countless others including the Christians for the first 1500 years that Christ meant "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to be more than just mere metaphor. It's you who are confused by making a false dichotomy, assuming that if Christ wasn't talking about cannibalism here he must only be talking metaphorically.

    But with the parables he would explain the meaning later. In the John 6 discourse he gets more and more literal when talking to the Jews and at the Last Supper the disciples learned that the bread and wine was the means by which they communed with ("ate and drank") His Body and Blood. (I Cor 10:16)
    Not at all. In fact it was only the gnostics in the early history of the church who denied the real presence. (Just read the writings of Ignatius or Irenaeus...or some of the gnostics own statements for proof). The Real Presence was common knowledge to all Baptized Christians.
     
  10. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Living4Him,

    The degree to wich the Catholic Church mangles and mutilates the scriptures in order to shoe-horn their dangerous and cultic practices into them is nothing less than absolutly stunning.

    That is precisely what the Jehovahs Witness believe about the Watchtower publications, since they refer to their organisation as Gods only "Spirit led organisation" on earth.

    The idea being perpetuated in that last quote is 100% Satanic to the core. It is a way to keep people in fear and bondage to whatever group is perpetuation the lie.

    Here it is again:

    The Catholic Church says...

    Yet Almighty God says...

    "Stand fast therefore in the freedom by wich God has made us free, and do not entangled again in the yoke of bondage"

    Very sadly,

    Mike
     
  11. Living4Him

    Living4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they actually take God at His Word.

    And Jesus also said, Luke 10:16
    He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.

    Also, your quote is taken out of context. Paul is speaking of the bondage of sin and the Law.

    Gal.5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.


    Oh yes, let's not forget that the Sermon on the Mount is the Savior's own commentary on the Ten Commandments. He explained how much more is expected of those who believe in Him, far beyond the demands of the original Decalogue.
     
  12. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Living4Him,

    I am using the scriptures IN context.

    The Catholic Church proclaims a works justification system. That is the essence of legalism, or keeping people under the law.

    And they use their version of lawkeeping to keep their people in bondage to their organisation.

    A works justification system, fear and lawkeeping.

    Those 3 went hand in hand at that time...and today.

    Catholic Church...

    Almighty God...

    God bless,

    Mike
     
  13. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It's obvious to me and countless others including the Christians for the first 1500 years that Christ meant "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to be more than just mere metaphor. It's you who are confused by making a false dichotomy, assuming that if Christ wasn't talking about cannibalism here he must only be talking metaphorically.</font>[/QUOTE]And what other choice do we have? Either the passage is literal or it is not. If it neither one of these then one can only conclude that you are a gnostic with some special higher knowledge. Please let us know. If it is not literal it obviously symbolic, and was spoken as a metaphor. There remains no other choice.

    Not true. He did with some of the parables, not with all of them. For example:

    Matthew 13:44-50 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
    45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
    46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
    47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
    48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
    49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
    50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Where is the interpretation of all of these parables? Let me give you a hint. There is none.

    You are entitled to your opinion; but it is wrong. Jesus never got literal at all. I already demonstrated that for you. He used symbolic and metaphoric language stratight through the whole chapter. And now you suddenly want to change the end of the chapter to a literal interpretation in order to accomodate a Catholic transubstantiation. What kind of dreadful exposition is that! It is not rightfully dividing the Word of Truth, as Paul commanded us to do. We don't "eat" his body, and "drink" his blood. Are you a vampire by chance? When are you going to demonstrate these things for me? I want hard evidence of the cannibalistic nature of your eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, as you say you take this passage literally. How Gross!! How entirely against the context of this passage does this go.
    Tell me John, have you become a Catholic?

    This is a false statement. Many of the early church fathers denied transubstantiation, just as they denied baptismal regeneration. Do you fall into the trap of believing History revised by the Catholics? It matters not what some of the church fathers believed:
    Like Ireneus who believed that Christ lived to the ripe old age of 80.
    Like Origen who is labeled by some as the Father of Arianism, and even then was labeled as an heretic.
    Many of the church fathers held to heretical beliefs.
    With Augustine originated the allegorical method of interpreting the Bible, as well as hyper-Calvinism. He is the darling star of the Catholics.

    Our sole authority of faith and practice resides in the Bible alone, not in the fanciful opinions of men's imaginations.
    DHK
     
  14. Living4Him

    Living4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood.

    Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.

    Ignatius of Antioch

    "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    Justin Martyr

    "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

    Irenaeus

    "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

    "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).


    Clement of Alexandria

    "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


    Tertullian

    "[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


    Hippolytus

    "‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
    the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).


    Origen

    "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).


    Cyprian of Carthage

    "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


    Council of Nicaea I

    "It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


    Aphraahat the Persian Sage

    "After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).


    Cyril of Jerusalem

    "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

    "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


    Ambrose of Milan

    "Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).


    Theodore of Mopsuestia

    "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


    Augustine

    "Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

    "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

    ...

    "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


    Council of Ephesus

    "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
     
  15. Living4Him

    Living4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Born Again in Baptism

    Justin Martyr

    "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).


    Irenaeus

    "‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


    Tertullian

    "[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).


    Hippolytus

    "The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).


    The Recognitions of Clement

    "But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).


    Testimonies Concerning the Jews

    "That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).


    Cyprian of Carthage


    "[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).


    Council of Carthage VII

    "And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).


    Cyril of Jerusalem

    "Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).


    Athanasius

    "[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).


    Basil the Great

    "This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).


    Ambrose of Milan

    "Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).

    "The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
    . . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).

    "You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).


    Gregory of Nyssa

    "[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).


    John Chrysostom

    "[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).


    Gregory of Nazianz

    "Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).


    The Apostolic Constitutions

    "Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).


    Augustine

    "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

    "Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

    Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the
    universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins.
     
  16. Living4Him

    Living4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's what the Jews were thinking who walked away from Jesus. Note especially his comment under the gospels.

    The below is an article from Marty Barrack who has a web site called Second Exodus. He was raised Jewish and has come home to the Catholic Faith.

    [ June 28, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Living4Him ]
     
  17. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read on DHK, you have your answer WHY Jesus didn’t explain Himself, b/c in verse 51 Jesus asks if they (His disciples) understood the parable. His disciples responded …Yea, Lord.

    Why would Jesus need to explain a parable to His disciples that already understood?

    No
     
  18. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    DHK, I know this response will probably be wasted effort, because you really have a hard time grasping what many of us are saying, and you seem unwilling to actually consider the facts, but here goes...

    Again you remain committed to the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. You suppose that if Christ isn't talking about crass cannibalism (ie chewing the flesh right off his body) and vampirism (ie drinking the blood right out of his veins, that he must be only talking strictly metaphorically without any realism whatsover. As has been explained to you countless times, Christ is not up in heaven getting his flesh chewed up or his blood drained from his veins during communion, but you persist in making this mocking caricature rather than trying to interact with the true doctrine of the real presence. Your response is like that of the unbelieving Jews: "How can he give us his flesh to eat?". If they would have stuck around, they would have learned with the apostles that the bread and wine is His body and blood, and that is how He could give themselves for our nourishment without participating in crass cannibalism. And this is what all ordinary Christians accepted by faith for the first 1500 years of Christianity without having to be privy to some "higher gnostic knowledge". It was the gnostics who rejected the real presence.

    Actually, it is correct as I will demonstrate.

    There was already a known metaphorical sense among the Jews in which "eat my flesh" could be understood as the idea "eat flesh" was in some Bible passages conveying the idea of "reviling or attacking" (see Ps.27:2 "the wicked come against me to eat up my flesh"; and Micah 3:3 "who also eat the flesh of My people"). So for the Jews to understand Christ in the common metaphorical sense, He would have to be saying: "If anyone reviles or attacks Me he will live forever" and "unless you revile the Son of Man you have no life in you." Yet obviously this metaphorical meaning didn't make sense to the Jews prompting them to ask: "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"(v.52). Instead of correcting their misunderstanding by introducing a new metaphor, Jesus continues to speak literally and in fact becomes more literal in v.54 when He switches from (Greek)"phago", which means simply "to eat" to the more graphic "trogo" which means "to crunch, eat, chew". The only hint of clarification is that He mentions that He will visibly ascend back to the Father (v.62), so while they must indeed "eat His flesh and drink His blood", it's not in the crass cannibalistic way in which the Jews are thinking (v.63). In other words He's going to ascend intact without chunks of His body missing(!).

    It is this realism (not cannibalism!) that the Church was unanimous in affirming for its first millenium-and-a-half.

    Oh really? Name one church father who denied the truth of the real presence in the eucharist or regeneration in baptism? (This ought to be good... :cool: )
     
  19. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Living4him,

    Your recent posts with all these quotes in them are a great example to the truthfulness of the scriptures.

    The scriptures make clear that even as the scriptures were being inscripturated savage wolves and false teachers were already infiltrating the body of Christ seeking to plant seeds of error and heresy in with the truth.

    And it didnt take long for those errors to be believed and spread, thats for sure.

    And DHK didnt say that ALL the early christians denied the real presence, only that many did.

    God bless,

    Mike
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Actually - "the problem" in the dialogue on John 6 is invariably the refusal of RC posters to pay attention to the details of the Gospel accounts on the subject of Christ's use of the symbols.

    "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]

    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”.

    In Christ,

    Bob

    [ June 28, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     
Loading...