Do dead people go to Heaven or Hell. [Archive]

Peter Wilson

Jul 23, 2008, 12:57 AM

Most people believe that when you die, you go to either Heaven or Hell, many believe that their mom or dad or aunt Harriet is looking down on them from Heaven. Actually, most people believe that they are going to heaven because they "haven't been that bad".
The Bible says that when we die, we sleep, those that are Born again, will rise to meet Jesus in the air , but the dead in Christ will rise first. The others will be risen up after the 1000yrs of Christ's reign and then the books will be opened and the world will be judged.
Those whose name is found in the book of life, get into heaven, those that are not, are thrown into the lake of fire for ever with the devil and his angels.
As far as I can understand it, Jesus hasn't returned yet, the 1000yrs haven't passed and the books haven't been opened. So where does this teaching that when you die, you go straight to heaven come from?
1 Thessalonians 4
13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
2 Thessalonians 1

5All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
Revelation 20
The Dead Are Judged
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Daniel 12
The End Times
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

There is lots of other scriptures that talk about this, what do you think?

0rphan

Jul 23, 2008, 03:16 AM

Yes they do... I believe in the after life 100% despite all the arguments and discussions, all of which will never have concrete proof.

I have no need for proof.. . seeing is believing

Peter Wilson

Jul 23, 2008, 03:40 AM

Dear Orphan, so do I, it's just the timing that I question. I believe what the Bible says, perhaps time is only relevant on earth, after all, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).
Perhaps, when we die, it will be like a twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:50-55), in just a blink of an eye, in God's time frame, then we will be standing before the judgement seat of Christ, whether we died 2000 yrs ago or tomorrow.
If the bible is so clear on this, to my understanding anyway, why do we believe otherwise?
Cheers. :)

sndbay

Jul 23, 2008, 03:59 AM

Peter there are other posted topics for this subject. Perhaps reading all that is offered in those would help you understand. From what I view from these question it's like hen picking from one verse to another. Reading and studying the bible in it's full, will bring forth much more understanding. You can begin knowing how these verses relate one to another many times. Rightly dividing the word is important.

Born Again:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:24-25 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Heaven

Luke 16:19-27 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Hope this helps..

0rphan

Jul 23, 2008, 07:15 AM

Yes they do.....i believe in the after life 100% dispite all the arguments and discussions, all of which will never have concrete proof.

I have no need for proof.. .... seeing is believing

Hi again Peter,

I meant to say.. Yes I do believe they go to heaven.. in my rush this morning, I didn't read the whole question... Whoops! I'm sure you new that though.

I consider myself to be a christian and also very spiritual, but unlike yourself could not quote chapter and verse... I commend you for that.
I tend to live by the 10 commandments, although some would argue the point on that,I consider that what ever belief you have these apply and have stood over the years in time.

The bible has been written and re-written, some things added or taken away, many things not meant to be taken literally, but to be analized for their true meanings.

However I do read passages from the bible when I feel the need, usually for comfort in the many sad times I've had during my life.

I do pray constantly for everyone around the world, for peace and healing etc...
I know the good guy upstairs hears me, where ever I choose to do this, I no longer feel the need to go to church,the good guy is every where around us, so my church is where ever I am...

There are many questions that require answers, but some will never be found, it's what's in your heart, you can't see it or touch it... but you know it's there.

WE are not to reason why but to except and enjoy the life that has been given us... yet through the grace of God go I

Blessings

Galveston1

Jul 23, 2008, 01:22 PM

Those judged after the Millennium are only those who did not have part in the first resurrection, i.e. those who are lost. There will be no saved people in the last resurrection, and no lost people in the first resurrection.

Peter Wilson

Jul 24, 2008, 03:42 AM

MoonlitWaves

Jul 24, 2008, 05:06 AM

Hey Peter Wilson! This is a good question and a good topic for discussion. We did talk about this very question not so long ago if you want to take a look at what others have said here... https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/there-inbetween-while-we-wait-sheol-216214.html

You can read my response there if you'd like as it will not change even if I were to type it here.

Just to add a little something. "Sleep" was used in the Old Testament as well as the New to describe the dead because they look like they are sleeping. Therefore, I don't think equating "sleep" with a waiting period is an absolute.

Also an important thing to keep in mind is that our bodies and our spirits are not one in the same. This body is corruptible and will die. But when Jesus steps out on that cloud with a great shout the bodies of those who have died will rise first and meet their spirits incorruptible... conformed in the image of Christ... made brand new. Then those that remain (that are saved) will be called up and our bodies will be made incorruptible and brand new all in the twinkling of an eye.

Even though the current Heaven will not be our eternal heaven (New Jeruselum), there is still a heaven right now. Even though the hell now is not the eternal lake of fire there is still a hell even now. And I believe that the souls of those who have gone before us and those who will go until the Resurrection will go to their respective place upon death with no waiting.

Why would we be any different than Lazarus in Abraham's bosom or the rich man in hell, or the thief on the cross who went to paradise the day he died, or those in hell whom Jesus showed He was alive during the three days after His death?

sndbay

Jul 24, 2008, 05:20 AM

Thanky you Sndbay, actually, I am a born again Christian, thank you for your answer, I know that I am saved, I just wondered what others thought of the timing of entering Heaven. When you die, or when Jesus returns, (that is for those that have accepted Christ as their Saviour now). And those that have to wait for the day of judgement, ie. the second ressurection, (thankyou Galveston1), I believe will "sleep" until then.

The Scripture tell us we should eat and digest the Word of God. I feel to do this that each subject brought forth is like that hen chosen to eat. To many hens (or) subjects at one time can be difficult to digest and eat. You have mentioned several subjects in scripture posted, and it takes several replies or posting to offer scripture that can properly answer or address all of them.
Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

And John has shown us what he was told to write. Revelation 10:8-10 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go [and] take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Galveston1 answered one of the subjects well. And I feel I replied to 2 other subjects in previous post.

________________________

As for the question concerning when will Jesus return, We don't have an answer to that... We can only eat and digest what is in the Word that was fore told to us.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Revelation offers the Word by John writing what he was shown of the present and future. That which Galveston1 spoke of is part of what John wrote.
In my opinion Matthew 24:15 is a big clue to bringing fore told what to recognize. Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand :(

We can't neglect to understand Matthew 24:32-33 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.

~My God help you on your path..

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 07:03 PM

Do dead people go to Heaven or Hell.

Please permit me to provide some background before answering the question.

Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 5 8 But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

And also:

Ecclesiastes 12 7 And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.

In addition, Scripture says:

Hebrews 12 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

So, when one dies, one goes to the presence of God.

For those who have done God's will perfectly or have died in a state of perfect grace, being in the presence of God is Heaven.

For those who have died in an imperfect state of grace, being in the presence of God is purifying:

Proverbs 17 3 As silver is tried by fire, and gold in the furnace: so the Lord trieth the hearts.

For those who have denied God's will persistently during life, when they die they will also be in the presence of God. But for them, the presence of God will be hell:

Hebrews 10 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Most people believe that when you die, you go to either Heaven or Hell, many believe that their mom or dad or aunt Harriet is looking down on them from Heaven. Actually, most people believe that they are going to heaven because they "haven't been that bad". The Bible says that when we die, we sleep,

That is a false understanding of Scripture. If we review Luke 16, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, we see three individuals who have passed from this life and are now in eternity. Abraham, Lazarus and the Rich Man (aka Dives). All three are depicted as souls who are awake and aware of themselves and of life on earth:

Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

This verse alone contradicts the doctrine of "soul sleep."

those that are Born again, will rise to meet Jesus in the air , but the dead in Christ will rise first.

To be "dead in Christ" means that we are absent from the body and present with the Lord.

The others will be risen up after the 1000yrs of Christ's reign and then the books will be opened and the world will be judged.
Those whose name is found in the book of life, get into heaven, those that are not, are thrown into the lake of fire for ever with the devil and his angels.
As far as I can understand it, Jesus hasn't returned yet,

Jesus never left. He is present in the Holy Eucharist:

Matthew 26 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

He is present in His Church:

Colossians 1 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

He is present in each of the Baptized:

1 Corinthians 12 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member.

That is why Jesus said:

Matthew 28 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

the 1000yrs haven't passed and the books haven't been opened. So where does this teaching that when you die, you go straight to heaven come from?

From the fact that "being present with the Lord" is heaven to those of us who love Him:

1 Thessalonians 4
13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep,

When Scripture speaks of death as falling asleep, it is because of the attitude of the body, and does not speak of the soul. A dead body is motionless as a person who is asleep is motionless.

or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

2 Thessalonians 1

5All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Revelation 20
The Dead Are Judged
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Daniel 12
The End Times
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

There is lots of other scriptures that talk about this, what do you think?

See my comments above.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Peter Wilson

Jul 25, 2008, 07:52 AM

Moonlitwaves, some good points there, must admit, not really hung up about this question, just going fishin'.
De Maria, transubstantiation is not in the Bible, is is a doctrine of men, we take communion to remember what Jesus did for us. It is not the actual body and blood of Jesus.
The bread symbolizes Jesus body, which was broken for us, also those that partake of this bread partake or share in the same body. We are one as Jesus and the Father are one, and we are now one in the Spirit with both the Father and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of God coming together as one, just as in marriage, husband and wife make one new flesh. That's why the figure of marriage is used between Jesus and the Church. Wherever the Holy Spirit is, Jesus is there, and the Father also.
Now both Jesus and the Father invite us to partake of the Holy Spirit and they that believe, are baptized into the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the body of true believers on earth, are the body of the Holy Spirit, so to speak.
When we partake of the grape juice, we are, in effect , making an agreement with God that we accept the new agreement (covenant) written in Christ's blood. If we drink it unworthily, then we bring judgement on ourselves. Cheers :)

sndbay

Jul 25, 2008, 09:35 AM

To be "dead in Christ" means that we are absent from the body and present with the Lord.

De Maria

My opinion holds to scripture saying

Roman 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

De Maria

Jul 25, 2008, 11:36 AM

My opinion holds to scripture saying

Roman 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

That is true. But I wasn't commenting on Romans 8:10 but on 1 Thess 4:15.

What is the difference?

Romans 8:10 speaks of the living person, like you and I who have died to sin and are alive in Christ. But we are still in this world.

Whereas 1 Thess 4;15 speaks to those who have passed to the next world. They remain dead, because their bodies have died, but they remain in Christ because their Soul remains alive.

So, my opinion also holds to Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 25, 2008, 11:42 AM

....
De Maria, transubstantiation is not in the Bible, is is a doctrine of men, we take communion to remember what Jesus did for us. It is not the actual body and blood of Jesus.
The bread symbolizes Jesus body, which was broken for us, also those that partake of this bread partake or share in the same body. We are one as Jesus and the Father are one, and we are now one in the Spirit with both the Father and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of God coming together as one, just as in marriage, husband and wife make one new flesh. that's why the figure of marriage is used between Jesus and the Church. Wherever the Holy Spirit is, Jesus is there, and the Father also.
Now both Jesus and the Father invite us to partake of the Holy Spirit and they that believe, are baptized into the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the body of true believers on earth, are the body of the Holy Spirit, so to speak.
When we partake of the grape juice, we are, in effect , making an agreement with God that we accept the new agreement (covenant) written in Christ's blood. If we drink it unworthily, then we bring judgement on ourselves. Cheers :)

That isn't what Scripture says however. Jesus is explicit that the bread which He leaves is His Flesh. That is Transubstantiation. He didn't say it is a symbol of His Flesh. He said it is His Flesh and He repeated it several times:

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

So, although the word "Transubstantiation" is not in the Bible. The Bible explains the concept very well:

1 Corinthians 10 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Sincerely,

De Maria

sndbay

Jul 26, 2008, 05:49 AM

1 Corinthians 10 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

De Maria

Yes indeed they are!! Remember also that Christ' body and blood is not something that will forsake us or ever leave us. The disciples found it difficult to eat = (digest)= (take in) until Jesus exampled the meaning of the His body and blood in John 6:63.

My God open those ears to hear what is being said in the posting of this message of Thy word I pray.Amen

John 6:52 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
John 6:62 What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Peter Wilson

Jul 26, 2008, 07:31 AM

This is interesting, I heard it years ago, the story is very interesting. What do you think.
YouTube - REAL sounds of hell prank call (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7f4Qngdfkog)

N0help4u

Jul 26, 2008, 07:44 AM

I believe that when you die you go to heaven or hell --no soul sleep
Because for one when you leave this earth you go to eternity which has no time so it does get confusing to me. Jesus told the thief on the cross today you will be with me in Paradise which suggests to me that you do not lay in the grave for the end. Also the verse to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Also there is the verse about the world becoming strangely dim when you go from one glory to the next (or something to that effect)

I think that sleep in the Bible is referring more to the body and not the soul and spirit.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 10:10 AM

Yes indeed they are!! Remember also that Christ' body and blood is not something that will forsake us or ever leave us. The disciples found it difficult to eat = (digest)= (take in) until Jesus exampled the meaning of the His body and blood in John 6:63.

That is true. Some of the disciples found it difficult to digest that they must actually chew on the Body of Christ in order to be saved.

My God open those ears to hear what is being said in the posting of this message of Thy word I pray.Amen

Thank you for the prayer. God will answer it in a way which you don't expect.

John 6:52 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
John 6:62 What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Your explanation has not been quite clearly expressed. However, I assume what you are saying is what many other Protestants have said in the past. You believe that by saying that the "spirit quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothihng", Jesus explained that He was speaking metaphorically.

If that is what you believe, I ask you to look a little more closely at the verses. Notice that Jesus, throughout the discourse, spoke of HIS flesh.

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

John 6 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

John 6 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

Suddenly in verse 64, He speaks of THE FLESH:

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

Now we know that Christ's Flesh availeth much. For Christ became flesh in order to save us. Therefore, whose flesh is it the availeth nothing? Not Christ's.

Matthew 26 41 Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak.

Is Christ's flesh weak? No, ours is.

Romans 7 5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death.

Is Christ's flesh sinful? No, ours is.

So, what did Christ mean, "THE flesh availeth nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

He means, that our flesh will die and become dust, but our souls will live if we accept the words He has spoken to us.

And what words had He just spoken:

John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

May God bless you with understanding for your sincere prayer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

sndbay

Jul 26, 2008, 12:00 PM

My belief holds Christ as spiritual speaking through the Father. The scripture John 6:63 is confirmed in Greek as a direct answer by Christ Himself to His own question.

John 6:63 It is 2076 the spirit 4151 that quickeneth 2227 ; the flesh 4561 3756 profiteth 5623 nothing 3762: the words 4487 that 3739 I 1473 speak 2980 unto you 5213, [they] are 2076 spirit 4151, and 2532 [they] are 2076 life 2222.

Spirit 4151 = pneuma πνεῦμα : Greek meaning = the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit) b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")

that quickeneth 2227 = zoopoieo ζῳοποιέω : Greek meaning = 1) to produce alive, begat or bear living young 2) to cause to live, make alive, give life a) by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate b) to restore to life c) to give increase of life: thus of physical life d) of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life 3) metaph. of seeds quickened into life, i.e. germinating, springing up, growing

3756 = οu οὐ Greek meaning = 1) no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer

1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

______________________________________________

Christ as Son of Man

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, [let him speak] as the oracles of God; if any man minister, [let him do it] as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

~Rejoice

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 12:21 PM

My belief holds Christ as spiritual speaking through the Father. The scripture John 6:63 is confirmed in Greek as a direct answer by Christ Himself to His own question.

John 6:63 It is 2076 the spirit 4151 that quickeneth 2227 ; the flesh 4561 3756 profiteth 5623 nothing 3762: the words 4487 that 3739 I 1473 speak 2980 unto you 5213, [they] are 2076 spirit 4151, and 2532 [they] are 2076 life 2222.

Spirit 4151 = pneuma πνεῦμα : Greek meaning = the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit) b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")

that quickeneth 2227 = zoopoieo ζῳοποιέω : Greek meaning = 1) to produce alive, begat or bear living young 2) to cause to live, make alive, give life a) by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate b) to restore to life c) to give increase of life: thus of physical life d) of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life 3) metaph., of seeds quickened into life, i.e. germinating, springing up, growing

3756 = οu οὐ Greek meaning = 1) no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer

1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

______________________________________________

Christ as Son of Man

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, [let him speak] as the oracles of God; if any man minister, [let him do it] as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

~Rejoice

Nowhere in any of this do I see a denial that we must Eat His Flesh to live eternally. Please highlight it if that is what you meant to do.

Sincerely,

De Maria

sndbay

Jul 26, 2008, 12:54 PM

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Christ = Son oF Man

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, [let him speak] as the oracles of God; if any man minister, [let him do it] as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

sndbay

Jul 26, 2008, 01:13 PM

Nowhere in any of this do I see a denial that we must Eat His Flesh to live eternally. Please highlight it if that is what you meant to do.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christ was speaking metaphorically.. John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

We agree that Christ sacrificed His body.. There is a metaphorically meaning in the difference, and again I state that Christ, Himself made that clear to the disciples in John 6:63.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 01:40 PM

Christ was speaking metaphorically.. John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

We agree that Christ sacrificed His body.. There is a metaphorically meaning in the difference, and again I state that Christ, Himself made that clear to the disciples in John 6:63.

Lets look at the Bread of Life discourse again.

Do you see where the Disciples understand Him literally?

John 6 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

Did Jesus say, "No, no, I am speaking metaphorically?"

No, He didn't. He said:

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

What does this mean? You said it before, He is revealing that He is God. He is saying, "If you understood that I am God, you would believe it."

And then He makes the distinction between THE flesh and His flesh which I mentioned befiore.

And fnally He challenged the Apostles to leave:
68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

But they don't go. Why? Because, although they don't understand, they believe He is the Son of God:
69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

That is the test even today. We step by faith and not by sight. Do you believe that Jesus is God? Then why don't you believe His Word?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 01:42 PM

N0help4u

Jul 26, 2008, 03:17 PM

Yep. In John 6, Jesus says that it is those who thought that He was speaking of real flesh that betrayed Him.
They are also the ones that thought Jesus came to uphold traditions and set up an earthly kingdom.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 03:28 PM

Yep. In John 6, Jesus says that it is those who thought that He was speaking of real flesh that betrayed Him.

Where?

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 03:37 PM

Yep. In John 6, Jesus says that it is those who thought that He was speaking of real flesh that betrayed Him.Where?

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. NKJV

Now Jesus now says that the flesh profits nothing. This appears contrary to verses 53-4 that state that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we receive eternal life, but then Jesus clarifies by stating that Jesus says that the words are the spirit and the life. This is why it is important to continue on and read the full context because Jesus has just struck to the very heart of the doctrine of transubstantiation by saying that the flesh does not profit us at all. Rather He says, that the life comes from the spirit, not the flesh and it is the words that bring the spirit.

Words = spirit = life, Flesh does not profit anything.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 4:

Matt 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. KJV

It is God's word that brings life and the spirit, not eating the flesh. Therefore, even if the bread were changed to flesh, there would be no benefit from eating it. Now, remember earlier in this document, it was noted that human flesh and blood do perish and yet the bread that Jesus offered did not perish? Here is the explanation. Jesus was not speaking of bread, or of blood or of flesh but was speaking of the words of God which bring life. God word and the life which comes from God's word (the Gospel) are eternal. Bread, flesh and blood are perishable, but God's word and salvation which comes from receiving the gospel are eternal.

64a But there are some of you who do not believe.

Some do not believe that the flesh profits nothing rather and thus do not believe that it is His words that give the spirit and life. If they do not believe that the flesh profits nothing, then they must believe that it is the flesh rather than His words that He is speaking about.

64b For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

And some as a result, they will betray him.

63 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

The Apostles remain true and believe that the flesh profits nothing but rather believe in His words for the spirit and life. What could be the words that Jesus speaks which bring life? It is the words of truth, the truth of who He is, the truth or why He came to earth in the flesh and the words that give us the truth of the gospel, the only words which can bring us eternal life. Thos who believed that He was speaking about the actual eating of flesh and drinking of blood missed the point of the gospel and were not saved. Those who stayed understood that without a sacrifice and without the shedding of blood, their was no remission of sins, and that Jesus was the lamb of God, sent to be the ultimate sacrifice, the only sacrifice which could actually take away sins and restore us to a right relationship with God.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 03:56 PM

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. NKJV

Now Jesus now says that the flesh profits nothing. This appears contrary to verses 53-4 that state that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we receive eternal life, but then Jesus clarifies by stating that Jesus says that the words are the spirit and the life. This is why it is important to continue on and read the full context because Jesus has just struck to the very heart of the doctrine of transubstantiation by saying that the flesh does not profit us at all. Rather He says, that the life comes from the spirit, not the flesh and it is the words that bring the spirit.

Look at it again. Notice how He distinguishes between "His Flesh" and "the flesh"

Jesus never says, "my" flesh profits nothing. He says "the" flesh profits nothing.

Words = spirit = life, Flesh does not profit anything.

You skipped an important point here. Jesus says, His words are spirit and life. Which words? The ones He has just spoken.

John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 4:

Matt 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. KJV

It certainly is.

First, man does not live by bread alone. Therefore Jesus provided His Flesh.
Second, it is the Word of God made flesh that we eat.

It is God's word that brings life and the spirit, not eating the flesh.

Of course not. But it is the eating of His Flesh which brings life and spirit. Your flesh avails naught. My flesh avails naught. Only Christ's Flesh avails much because it is He who took flesh for the salvation of the world.

Therefore, even if the bread were changed to flesh, there would be no benefit from eating it.

Of course you are correct. If bread were changed to beef or if bread were changed to TJ's flesh. There would be no benefit whatsoever.

But since the bread was changed by the Word of God to His Son's Flesh, then it avails much indeed.

Now, remember earlier in this document, it was noted that human flesh and blood do perish and yet the bread that Jesus offered did not perish? Here is the explanation. Jesus was not speaking of bread, or of blood or of flesh but was speaking of the words of God which bring life. God word and the life which comes from God's word (the Gospel) are eternal. Bread, flesh and blood are perishable, but God's word and salvation which comes from receiving the gospel are eternal.

But Jesus Flesh and Blood are not perishable:
Acts Of Apostles 13 35 And therefore, in another place also, he saith: Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption.

64a But there are some of you who do not believe.

Some do not believe that the flesh profits nothing rather and thus do not believe that it is His words that give the spirit and life. If they do not believe that the flesh profits nothing, then they must believe that it is the flesh rather than His words that He is speaking about.

That is a false interpretation of this Scripture. Some do not believe that Jesus gives us His Flesh and Blood as real food and drink unto life eternal.

64b For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

And some as a result, they will betray him.

This is specifically about Judas.

72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

63 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

The Apostles remain true and believe that the flesh profits nothing but rather believe in His words for the spirit and life.

That doesn't even make sense. The disciples who believed that Jesus was speaking left because they did not believe that Jesus Flesh profiteth unto eternal life. That is why they said, it is a hard saying.

Obviously, the Apostles believed that Jesus Flesh availeth much.

What could be the words that Jesus speaks which bring life? It is the words of truth, the truth of who He is, the truth or why He came to earth in the flesh and the words that give us the truth of the gospel, the only words which can bring us eternal life.

Of course but in this context it is the words He just spoke. He just said that His Flesh is real food and that we must eat His Flesh if we want life eternal.

Thos who believed that He was speaking about the actual eating of flesh and drinking of blood missed the point of the gospel and were not saved.

No, you've missed the point. Those who understood but could not believe that He was speaking of His Flesh were the ones who were not saved.

Those who stayed understood that without a sacrifice and without the shedding of blood, their was no remission of sins, and that Jesus was the lamb of God, sent to be the ultimate sacrifice, the only sacrifice which could actually take away sins and restore us to a right relationship with God.

And what happens to the sacrifice of the paschal Lamb?

Exodus 12 4 But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb.

And what is Jesus?
1 Corinthians 5 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 04:20 PM

Look at it again. Notice how He distinguishes between "His Flesh" and "the flesh"
Jesus never says, "my" flesh profits nothing. He says "the" flesh profits nothing.

The same word for "the" is used in describing "the Spirit". Are you saying that "the spirit" is generic spirit that gives life? Be consistent!

You skipped an important point here. Jesus says, His words are spirit and life. Which words? The ones He has just spoken.

So you ignore all His other words? On what basis?On what basis do you reject and ignore His explanation of what He meant?

This is specifically about Judas.

Read more carefully. This passage refers to "some". Verse 71 refers to Judas:

John 6:70-71
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
NKJV

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 10:19 PM

The same word for "the" is used in describing "the Spirit". Are you saying that "the spirit" is generic spirit that gives life? Be consistent!

In the discourse, did Jesus ever mention His Spirit? No? Then you know that when He speaks of THE Spirit, He is speaking of a particular Spirit. Can you guess which?

So you ignore all His other words? On what basis?On what basis do you reject and ignore His explanation of what He meant?

On the contrary, I take all His words into account. His words are spirit and life.

Read more carefully. This passage refers to "some". Verse 71 refers to Judas:

John 6:70-71
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
NKJV

65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

It also refers to who he was that would betray Him.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 10:29 PM

In the discourse, did Jesus ever mention His Spirit? No? Then you know that when He speaks of THE Spirit, He is speaking of a particular Spirit. Can you guess which?

So you are saying that it is just anyone's spirit that gives life then - is that right?

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 10:30 PM

It also refers to who he was that would betray Him.

Verse 72 is referring to verse 71. Read the whole thing, not just pieces.

Peter Wilson

Jul 27, 2008, 03:54 AM

Peter Wilson

Jul 27, 2008, 04:50 AM

Thank you Nohelp4u, I'm sure we share the same Spirit, Bless you. :)

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 02:47 PM

So you are saying that it is just anyone's spirit that gives life then - is that right?

No. Here's what I asked:

Originally Posted by De Maria
In the discourse, did Jesus ever mention His Spirit? No? Then you know that when He speaks of THE Spirit, He is speaking of a particular Spirit. Can you guess which?

I am astounded that you can't guess which Spirit is THE Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit gives life. Do you deny it?

John 6 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

Matthew 4 1 Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.

Matthew 12 31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Romans 8 4 That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to THE flesh, but according to the spirit.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 02:54 PM

Verse 72 is referring to verse 71. Read the whole thing, not just pieces.

Are you doing this to avoid admitting that you are wrong?

Here's how this particular exchange began:

You posted #27 which said, amongst other things:
64b For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

And some as a result, they will betray him.

I posted #28 where I dissected message #27 and I said:

Quote:
64b For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

And some as a result, they will betray him.

This is specifically about Judas.

72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

Now, 64b says, "and who would betray Him." Obviously this refers to Judas and verse 72 confirms that it refers to Judas.

So, please, divide the word rightly.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 03:06 PM

The reason for the passover meal was to remember the Lord's covering of the blood when the destroying Angel killed all the first born of Egypt. It was the beginning of the deliverance of Israel. The bread and wine represented the passover lamb and the blood on the doorposts. It was done in remembrance of God's salvation.
Jesus comes as our passover lamb, we do this to remember what He has done for us, He is not sacrificed weekly, He died once, for all.

Correct. Who sacrifices Jesus weekly?

This is what we remember, not some religious sacrement or tradition.

Do you remember it every year? Has this been passed down for centuries? Then by what stretch of the imagination is this NOT a tradition?

It is a tradition,

Ok, this is getting confusing. Didn't you just say,
This is what we remember, not some religous sacrement or tradition.

So, please explain, if you don't remember any traditions, how do you remember this one?

but not a religious one,

What does religious mean to you? Because to me it means:
# concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; "lords temporal and spiritual...
# having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude"
# of or relating to clergy bound by monastic vows; "the religious or regular clergy conducts the service"
# a member of a religious order who is bound by vows of poverty and chastity and obedience
# extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in observing the rules of health"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In what sense is this not a sacred matter? In what sense is this not concerned with belief in God?

but it is to remind us, that we have a new testament, written in His blood, for without His body and blood, and ultimate death, we would have no new will and testament.

So, you only do it for yourself but not in obedience to God because you love God:
John 14 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word,

1 Corinthians 11
The Lord's Supper
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Cheers. :)

This verse tends to substantiate my argument. Perhaps you could highlight where you believe it substantiates yours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 03:24 PM

I am astounded that you can't guess which Spirit is THE Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit.

Right - just as when the same verse speaks of "the flesh" (using the same word for "the" in Greek) it means Jesus' flesh (as we can also discern from the context).

That was my point.

You were trying to suggest that "the flesh" meant something different because of the use of the word "the", leaving the impression that you were denying that it is the Holy Spirit who gives life.

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 03:36 PM

Are you doing this to avoid admitting that you are wrong?

Nice try, but a clear reading of John 6 says that verse 72 is referring to verse 71 - no matter how you try to wiggle out of it.

John 6:62-71
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65

Note how the reference to those (plural) who would betray Him by not believing that the flesh referred to His word is here all in one single sentence - so it cannot be separated as a separate though without so thoroughly twisting so as to make the passage un-recognizable from the original text. Nor can one rightly claim that one half of the sentence belongs with verse 72.

As for the latter part of the passage, it would be a serious mangling of the whole chapter to try to make verse 72 refer to anything but verse 71.

70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
NKJV

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 08:43 PM

Right - just as when the same verse speaks of "the flesh" (using the same word for "the" in Greek) it means Jesus' flesh (as we can also discern from the context).

That was my point.

You were trying to suggest that "the flesh" meant something different because of the use of the word "the", leaving the impression that you were denying that it is the Holy Spirit who gives life.

The term THE flesh is also commonly used in Scripture. And THE flesh does not speak of Jesus flesh unless it modifies it explicitly such as, "the flesh of the son of Man".

Here are some examples:
John 8 15 You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.

Romans 7 5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death.

Romans 8 1 There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh.

2 Corinthians 1 17 Whereas then I was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or, the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that there should be with me, It is, and It is not?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 09:20 PM

The term THE flesh is also commonly used in Scripture.

Yes it is, but when one reads scripture or anything else, one must examine the context in which the word appears, not just make assumptions based upon something that one saw somewhere else.

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 05:28 PM

Yes it is, but when one reads scripture or anything else, one must examine the context in which the word appears, not just make assumptions based upon something that one saw somewhere else.

The context is clear in John 6.

Jesus speaks of His flesh availing to eternal life.

And then Jesus speaks of THE flesh availing nothing.

It couldn't be clearer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 06:32 PM

The context is clear in John 6.

Jesus speaks of His flesh availing to eternal life.

And then Jesus speaks of THE flesh availing nothing.

I believe that it is extremely clear, and cannot imagine how anyone who was not imposing their own theological system or that of their denomination could mistake what it is saying.

We've been through this route once already - want to do it again?

The same verse that says "The Flesh", also refers to "The Spirit".

The same word in Greek is used for "The".

Are you saying that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but rather that any spirit can give life? Be consistent.

Peter Wilson

Jul 29, 2008, 03:35 AM

N0help4u

Jul 29, 2008, 05:57 AM

Exactly the social club + entitlement because you are this religion or that is what first made me wake up. I even remember back in the early 70's my church youth group met at one of the members house and had a drinking party and they dared the one guy to drink a bottle as fast as he could and he died. The pastor came and they covered up any blame on anybody's part. The whole incident made me realize how can you go to church for 2 hours a week and then live like the devil for the rest time. The guys in the church would stare at their watches in the fall and point at the watches for the pastor to know he was on his final countdown so they could get out early enough to get home to watch the football game.
I have said for years that even drug dealers say they are Christian because their grandma raised them TELLING them they are Christian so on grandma's word alone they believe it so.
The Bible Matt 7 even says that the do gooders of the Church will say Lord, Lord did we not [do all these good works] in your name and he will say depart from me

De Maria

Jul 30, 2008, 06:22 PM

I believe that it is extremely clear, and cannot imagine how anyone who was not imposing their own theological system or that of their denomination could mistake what it is saying.

We've been through this route once already - want to do it again?

The same verse that says "The Flesh", also refers to "The Spirit".

The same word in Greek is used for "The".

Are you saying that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but rather that any spirit can give life? Be consistent.

I am being consistent. It is you who is being inconsistent.

Jesus consistently refers to HIS Flesh.

Then He refers to THE Flesh.

Obvious difference there.

So, it is you imposing your presuppositions into Scripture just as you imposed your presuppositions into Cardinal Newman's statement as has already been demonstrated.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 30, 2008, 07:02 PM

De Maria, Hi I'm back. What I meant bt a religious tradition, is that perhaps, you may have an understanding of the meaning, even though it may differ from mine, but the average Catholic has no idea, they learn a few stories but hardly, if ever read it for themselves.

Well, I find the same problem with the average Protestant. They know a few lines of Scripture which have generally been taught to them in a twisted manner. So although they recognized Scripture verses, they don't know Scripture at all because they don't know the true meaning of the words.

But Catholics listen to Scripture read every time they go to Mass and the interpretation of the Scripture is correct. Therefore, though they can't name a chapter and verse, they know the truth rather than a lie.

I was brought up a Catholic, all my family are Catholics, but not one of them read the Bible. I even ask people that I meet, who are Catholic, about 1 in 10 actually own a Bible, but I haven't found one that actually reads it.

Do they go to Mass?

Next time you go to Mass with your family, listen to the readings and the homily.

They believe in the traditions of men, perpetrated by the Universal Church, (Catholic Church, as you know), ask any one of them to explain the meaning of "saved by faith and not works", if you got one sensible answer out of 100, then you would be doing good.

That is a perfect example Pete. Lets see what Scripture says:

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

OH MY!! The Catholic doctrine. And most Catholics know that they have to do good deeds in order to get into heaven Pete. Be honest. Isn't that true? Because Protestants accuse us of a "works" theology.

Oh, but wait, you've probably been taught that St. Paul said, saved by faith ALONE.
Ephesians 2 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

Romans 3:28 For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Why that just says saved THROUGH faith. And nowhere is the word "alone" to be found unless you have a copy of Martin Luther's Bible wherein he added that word to Scripture.

But that's hard to understand. It almost seems as though St. Paul is contradicting St. James. And Scripture is clear, St. Paul does say things in a manner hard to understand.

2 Peter 3 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

So what does St. Paul understand by faith? Lets look at Hebrews 11:
4 By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice

7 By faith Noe, ..., framed the ark for the saving of his house,

8 By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

In other words, St. Paul knows that by faith we obey, by faith we work and if we don't work that means we don't have faith.

The normal answer would be along the lines "I'm a Catholic!"

EXACTLY!! In other words, I'm a member of the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Every Catholic that I know, including me, when I was one, thinks nothing of going to a fortune teller, reading and believing Astrology, their star signs etc, believing in chance and luck, swear and curse, using Jesus name as a curse, getting outragously drunk, (I've even seen priests do this whilst carousing with women at a bar, they were regulars,) having sex out of marriage, using drugs, cheating, stealing,etc and still they consider themselves "good Catholics" and going to heaven, "just because they are Catholics".

Up to this point, I thought you were sincere. But I'll be upfront. You are lying.

But I'll ask you one thing just to see what you say. Was your mother Catholic? And does she fall in this category as well?

They may go to confession now and then, and go to Church, just to fulfill their religious duty.

Nothing wrong with fulfilling religious duty.

Ask them anything about God or Jesus, and they either no nothing, or only the Christmas and easter story, or they say angrily, "I don't want to talk about that rubbish!"

You paint with a broad brush. I also know many non Catholics who don't like to talk about religion.

They don't change, unless their lifestyle forces them to, through illness or prison.

Unless you have some sort of reliable data to support this strange idea of yours, I must pass it off as simply anti-Catholic invention.

A lot of good it does them, as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to your traditions, but I would much prefer the Power of God.

If you understood Scripture, you'd know that our Traditions are the Word of God.
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Just how many souls are you really saving, I think it would be better if they heeded the Lord's command,"

Rev. 18
4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people,
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.

I'm sure that you know that many people believe the Mystery Babylon in Revelation is the Catholic Church, I hope it isn't, but I suspect that it is.

Again because you don't understand Scripture and are simply listening to anti-Catholic babble. Let me show you:

Babylon is described as "that great city":

Rev 17: 18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rev 18: 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgment come.

The "great city" is the city in which Jesus was crucified:

Rev 11: 8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. . The Kings of the earth gathered in Jerusalem to crucify Christ.

Rev 17: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication

Acts 4: 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Babylon and Jerusalem are built on seven mountains:

Revelation 17: 9And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings:

Jerusalem is built on seven mountains: Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah.

Babylon is destroyed by fire:

Rev 18: 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire

Jerusalem is destroyed by fire:

Ez 23: 25And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.

God calls His people out of that city:

Rev 18: 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Paul calls people out of Jerusalem:

Heb 13: 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Mark 7
5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

Keep smilin' :)

I'm smiling because you are showing how Satan has fooled you. Let me ask you, did Jesus condemn all traditions in this verse?

Because as I read it, he only condemned traditions OF MEN. Now, the Catholic Church keeps traditions. While you keep Scripture alone. That contradicts Scriptures clear teaching:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

But let me show you a well known secret. It is well known that the Churches which came from the Reform traditions have no leader. Or, to be more precise, they each have a leader. That is what the many headed dragon represents.

Apocalypse 12 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:

Thus this dragon represents the Protestant Churches which have no true leader but many small leaders which are led by the Anti-Christ. That is why these Churches added divorce and remarriage to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even though Jesus said:

Mark 10 11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

And these Churches permit contraception and masturbation even though the Word of God clearly teaches:
Genesis 1 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

Some of these Churches even permit homosexual clergy. Homosexuality, an abominable sin in the eyes of God:
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [sic] of their error which was meet."

And many other sins have these Churches legitimized in the name of Jesus Christ. But Christ is clear:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Still smiling?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 30, 2008, 07:11 PM

I am being consistent. It is you who is being inconsistent.

You are applying two different definitions to the same word used in the same context, the same sentence.

Hardly consistent. You are using neither consistent grammar nor sound interpretation.

You can keep insisting that we must all ignore grammar and the context and fall in line with your denomination because you say that we must, but if you expect us to all turn off our brains and do so, you are sadly mistaken.

De Maria

Jul 30, 2008, 10:00 PM

You are applying two different definitions to the same word used in the same context, the same sentence.

Hardly consistent. You are using neither consistent grammar nor sound interpretation.

You can keep insisting that we must all ignore grammar and the context and fall in line with your denomination because you say that we must, but if you expect us to all turn off our brains and do so, you are sadly mistaken.

I'll let reasonable people decide between your interpretations and the Church's.

Your explanation leads to the conclusion that Christ's flesh avails nothing.

The Church's explanation leads to the conclusion that Christ's flesh imparts the Holy Spirit and therefore avails much. This is consistent with the Incarnation. Christ's becoming flesh is definitely profitable for us.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Peter Wilson

Jul 31, 2008, 06:11 AM

De Maria, hey there, a little hot under the collar are we, sorry, I was probably not very gracious towards the Catholic church, just that it is full of hypocrites, that's all, how-ever not all, I have heard that there are some true believers in there, perhaps your one?
What I mean to say about the attitude of many of the Catholic persuasion, is that they are superstitious, and that, to the extreme.
Yes my parents and my sisters go to mass, though my father can't at the moment as he is in a nursing home.
He has been going to the same Catholic Church in Port Macquarie for 35 years. I asked him who his friends were there once, he told me he doesn't know anybody to talk to.
Now he is in a nursing home, and the only visitors he gets is from family. Where is his spiritual leader, who knows, obviously, he doesn't care about his sheep, even his faithful ones.
Faith without works is dead, I certainly agree, in Hebrews 11, it also says that without faith, it is impossible to please God.
If I say that I believe and then go off and act like the rest of the world, with no mind to follow the way of Christ, then certainly, that faith is dead.
What are you believing God for now, or are you just walking in those things that bring you comfort, like your traditions.
When was the last time you told your people that we healed by the stripes of Jesus (Isaiah 53 : 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
When did you lay hands on some-one and stand for their healing, when was the last time you gave a prophetic word to some-one, do miracles happen in your church, how about dreams and visions, when did you see some-one set free from drug addiction or demonic control after just receiving and believing the words of Jesus, how about the deaf hearing, or the blind seeing, or the crippled walking? Do you have faith to believe for these things, would you preach this in your church, would you tell some-one dying from Aids that God can heal them, what about a child dying from leukemia, would you tell the parents that Jesus can heal that child?
Well, I have been a part of this type of Church, and not only in one Church, many Churches believe for these same things and have put their faith into action and have had the victory.
I have experienced many of these myself, I have been healed, delivered, set free from a number of addictions and illnesses.
If I hadn't come to the Lord when I was 35, I would surely be dead now or in prison. God spoke to me, audibly, and told me to get baptised by full immersion.
I was just leaving a fellow's place, whom I had gone to kill, it was my second attempt. The first time, about 12 months before, an angel stopped me, (at least I believe it was an angel), as as I was holding this fellow by the throat and punching him to death, this angel stepped between us and said "That's enough, go home", he was about 6'8" and powerfully built. There was no-one in the street before hand.
So what do you believe God for, to go to Purgatory for a couple of million years or so.
I tried to get back to God through the Catholic church for many years,.
Whenever I went to a town to work or live, I would go to the Presbytery and make an appointment to talk to the priest.
All but one, had no idea about the questions I had, and all I was asking them was to tell me how to live my life according to Gods word.
The last one, told me that I had to be humbled, so as I went to see him weekly, he told me to lean forward and offer him my head so that he could pull out some hair.
He said that this would make me subject to him, whatever he meant by that, I'm not sure.
He said that he did to the altar boys all the time.
I thought, "he's supposed to be my spiritual leader, he must know what he is doing), so I offered my head, whenever he told me to, and I must say, it hurt when he pulled out my hair. I was 34 at the time.
One night, he said that to humble me, he was going to take me from the presbytery, down the main street, along the breakwall of the "Beautiful Hastings River" ( bit of tourism advert there!) back along the breakwall, back up the main street and back to the presbytery, with my head under his arm!
That would take about 1 hour to walk that distance.
I went home and thought about it, and rang him up and said that if God can forgive me, I can forgive those that hurt me, and said lets forget about it.
That was the last time I was going to the catholic church for help, that was weird!

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:08 AM

I'll let reasonable people decide between your interpretations and the Church's.

You mean between what the Bible says and your denomination's interpretation, because that is what we are discussing.

Your explanation leads to the conclusion that Christ's flesh avails nothing.

Eating His flesh is the context, and He (Jesus) says that eating it avails nothing - that He used His flesh as symbolic of the Spirit and the word.

De Maria

Jul 31, 2008, 09:49 AM

You mean between what the Bible says and your denomination's interpretation, because that is what we are discussing.

No, unlike you, I can distinguish between YOUR OPINIONS and what Scripture says.

Eating His flesh is the context, and He (Jesus) says that eating it avails nothing - that He used His flesh as symbolic of the Spirit and the word.

Again, Jesus says that eating His flesh (and drinking His Blood) avails to eternal life:

Here we see it negatively stated.

John 6 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

In other words, if you don't eat MY Flesh and drink MY Blood, you have not life in you.

Then we see it positively:

John 6 55 He that eateth MY flesh, and drinketh MY blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

In other words, if you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have everlasting life.

Note finally, that He says, "THE" flesh profiteth nothing.

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.

If He meant to deny what He had previously said, He would have said,

MY Flesh and MY Blood profiteth nothing.

But He didn't. He clearly distinguished the difference between His Flesh and THE flesh.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 11:43 AM

No, unlike you, I can distinguish between YOUR OPINIONS and what Scripture says.

Heh heh heh - got to start sniping eh? Must be running short of arguments!

Again, Jesus says that eating His flesh (and drinking His Blood) avails to eternal life:

Here we see it negatively stated.

John 6 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

If you stop there without reading Jesus' explanation, then you are relying on your own private interpretation. I'll take Jesus' interpretation over that of any man any day.

Tj3

Aug 11, 2008, 09:11 PM

It depends upon whether they are saved.
What is necessary to be saved? You have to be brought into spiritual contact with the saving death of Jesus by faith and baptism and loyal membership in his Church, by love of God and neighbors, proved by obedience to His commandments, by the sacraments, especially Holy Communion, by prayer, and good works and by final perseverance, that is persevering God’s friendship grace until death. A Catechism for Adults, Rev. William J. Cogan,

Scripture says:

John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
NKJV

ScottRC

Aug 11, 2008, 11:25 PM

You have to be brought into spiritual contact with the saving death of Jesus by faith and baptism and loyal membership in his Church,
HUH?

So you have to be a "loyal" member of the Catholic Church or you don't go to heaven? :confused:

Please clarify... because your posts seems to be TOTALLY against the teachings of the Church.

Thanks.

N0help4u

Aug 12, 2008, 02:54 AM

HUH?

So you have to be a "loyal" member of the Catholic Church or you don't go to heaven? :confused:

Please clarify... because your posts seems to be TOTALLY against the teachings of the Church.

Thanks.

Even though I agree that saintjoan is not right in their statement
WHERE did she say 'Catholic' Church and were do you get the impression that they are TOTALLY against the teachings of the Church when it looks like they seem to believe that through the church the only way to be saved.

De Marie even says herself that the Catholic Church is the only True religion

saintjoan
It depends upon whether they are saved.
What is necessary to be saved? You have to be brought into spiritual contact with the saving death of Jesus by faith and baptism and loyal membership in his Church, by love of God and neighbors, proved by obedience to His commandments, by the sacraments, especially Holy Communion, by prayer, and good works and by final perseverance, that is persevering God's friendship grace until death. A Catechism for Adults, Rev. William J. Cogan

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 09:14 AM

De Marie even says herself that the Catholic Church is the only True religion

Why yes, that is true.

And I agree with what I've read by St. Joan and ScottRC to this point.

I believe what St. Joan has reasonably left out is what is contained in paragraph 847 of the Catholic Catechism:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#847)

But lets be real. Its hard to include every single detail of every single doctrine in a short summary.

Sincerely,

De Maria

N0help4u

Aug 12, 2008, 09:17 AM

So it wasn't that she was wrong as scott implied but his question would seem to contradict the Catholic teaching and saint joan's reply was actually that she left something out.

Tj3

Aug 12, 2008, 11:47 AM

HUH?

So you have to be a "loyal" member of the Catholic Church or you don't go to heaven? :confused:

Please clarify... because your posts seems to be TOTALLY against the teachings of the Church.

Thanks.

Actually, that is the teaching of the Roman Church. I posted a link to the information on here (cannot remember if it was the same thread) not too long ago.

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 05:22 PM

so it wasn't that she was wrong

Not in my opinion.

as scott implied but his question would seem to contradict the Catholic teaching

I don't see that either. Show me.

and saint joan's reply was actually that she left something out.

Correct. That is what I see. Either of them may correct me if I'm wrong.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 05:26 PM

heh heh heh - got to start sniping eh? Must be running short of arguments!

No on both counts. But you seem to be.

If you stop there without reading Jesus' explanation, then you are relying on your own private interpretation. I'll take Jesus' interpretation over that of any man any day.

Well, I've gone all the way through the entire Bread of Life discourse with you several times.

Again, Jesus is always talking about His Flesh when it avails to eternal life.

But He specifically says, "THE" flesh avails nothing.

Now, if He meant to contradict what He was saying, I believe He would say, "My flesh and My blood" avail nothing. Because throughout the Bread of Life discourse He says that His flesh and His Blood avail to eternal life.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 05:30 PM

Actually, that is the teaching of the Roman Church. I posted a link to the information on here (cannot remember if it was the same thread) not too long ago.

N0help4u agrees: yeah I am surprised he didn't KNOW that already!!

You must have left out paragraph number 847 which I have copied prior.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 847 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 12, 2008, 06:26 PM

But He specifically says, "THE" flesh avails nothing.

Now, if He meant to contradict what He was saying, I believe He would say, "My flesh and My blood" avail nothing. Because throughout the Bread of Life discourse He says that His flesh and His Blood avail to eternal life.

You cannot simply divide up sentences into parts and interpret them the way that you want out of the context of not just the sentence, but of the whole paragraph and chapter.

Tj3

Aug 12, 2008, 06:31 PM

You must have left out paragraph number 847 which I have copied prior.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 847 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm)

I understand and the claim is that they are saved through the church though they don't know it. But let's look at what one of your "infallible popes" said:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins... "

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Source: UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

Was Pope Boniface VIII wrong? Or is this a case where your tradition contradicts itself?

revdrgade

Aug 13, 2008, 02:37 PM

My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that there are different perspectives on the resurrection.

One perspective if OBJECTIVE andETERNAL and the other is SUBJECTIVE and TEMPORAL.

We, who dwell on this earth have no ability in human logic except to consider the resurrection within the scope of TIME; ( temporal, with a beginning and an end). To us the resurrection is in the future. Could be today, but still, it's in the future and not now.

My opinion is that when a person dies they "exit time" and are in the eternal(which we can't even understand).

Scripture says that the resurrection will all be on one "day". We'll all meet together at that "time". From our perspective those resurrected are now "asleep". We don't have any relationship with them "now". Yet, their resurrection will be ours and ours theirs.

We don't precede them, they don't precede us. Therefore, they are NOT looking down from heaven on us. They have not entered into the judgement and not already separated to heaven or hell... according to our temporal perspective.

Heb 9:26-28
26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once , and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
NIV

(I am not a Chilaist and so see no value in arguing about another resurrection.)

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 03:33 PM

You cannot simply divide up sentences into parts and interpret them the way that you want out of the context of not just the sentence, but of the whole paragraph and chapter.

I keep telling you that.

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 04:07 PM

I understand and the claim is that they are saved through the church though they don't know it. But let's look at what one of your "infallible popes" said:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...."

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Source: UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

Was Pope Boniface VIII wrong? or is this a case where your tradition contradicts itself?

Neither.

Which tradition do you think is violated here? Or do you mean doctrine? And where do you consider Pope Boniface to have erred?

1. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is not violated because Pope Boniface was not addressing the whole Church.

Papal Bulls must be taken in context of the situation in which they are addressing.
Pope Boniface was not speaking to the entire Church but to a certain group of French Catholics who were rebelling against the Church. Therefore, this was not intended as a universal teaching but as a warning to any Catholics who willfully disobey the Pope and the Church. And of course to any Catholics who wanted to create a schism.

2. The doctrine of Nulla Salus, no salvation outside the Church is not violated because he is addressing Catholics who are threatening to leave the Church. Not people who are not aware of the Church or her doctrines.

3. Every human creature is subject to the Pontiff because he is Jesus' vicar or representative. Jesus' gave him the mandate to "feed my sheep". This is true whether the individual is aware of it or not.

4. Recognizing that the Pontiff is addressing Catholics in this Papal document, the assumption is that "every human being" to which he is referring has not willfully rejected the Church and thus the authority of the Pontiff who rules over her.

So, no, I see no error here.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 06:51 PM

Neither.

You cannot wriggle out of it that easily.

1. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is not violated because Pope Boniface was not addressing the whole Church.

He proclaims it under the authority of God, for example:

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God", but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth . Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Is your argument therefore that he was wrong, wrongly invoked the name of God and is therefore a false prophet?

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 07:01 PM

You cannot wriggle out of it that easily.

He proclaims it under the authority of God, for example:

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God", but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth . Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Is your argument therefore that he was wrong, wrongly invoked the name of God and is therefore a false prophet?

It's a very simple argument which he is using to persuade the rebels not to separate from the Church and to submit to her authority.

He is simply explaining that all authority is from God. Therefore, if they resist the authority of the Church, they are resisting God.

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.

Very simple logic.

Oh and it is absolutely true. Anyone who rejects the Church, knowing she is the Body of Christ and the Household of God, rejects God and is lost.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 07:05 PM

Its a very simple argument which he is using to persuade the rebels not to separate from the Church and to submit to her authority.

You did not answer my question.

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 08:19 PM

You did not answer my question.

I told you before, I don't answer loaded questions. You'll have to be satisfied with my response. Here it is again so you don't have to research it.

It's a very simple argument which he is using to persuade the rebels not to separate from the Church and to submit to her authority.

He is simply explaining that all authority is from God. Therefore, if they resist the authority of the Church, they are resisting God.

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.

Very simple logic.

Oh and it is absolutely true. Anyone who rejects the Church, knowing she is the Body of Christ and the Household of God, rejects God and is lost.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 08:30 PM

I told you before, I don't answer loaded questions. You'll have to be satisfied with my response.

I understand that you don't answer questions. Especially when you have no option but to accept that your argument makes that pope a false prophet. Your only other options are to accept that it contradicts your denominational tradition.

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 09:23 PM

Response to TJ3

The popes are infallible.

saintjoan,

What would you say about Pope Honorius who was excommunicated for heresy.

Was the infallible Honorius in error, or the subsequent infallible Popes who excommunicated Him?

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 09:35 PM

TJ3
Your example seems to make papal infallibility illogical, but our final authority must not be logic or the word of God, it must lie with the traditions of the church (Roman Catholic).
"The Spirit of truth guarantees that when the Pope declares that he is teaching infallibility as Christ’s representative and visible head of the Church on basic matters of faith or morals, he cannot lead the church into error. This gift from the Spirit is called papal infallibility." Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 23

Ignore logic and the Bible for the sake of the Roman Church? But God is a God of reason:

Isa 1:18
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.
NKJV

That would mean that logic was give to us by God.

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 09:42 PM

You forget that papal infallibility allows for the evolution of doctrine. Some examples of how popes have revealed new truths to the church (Roman Catholic) would include:
300 AD. Prayers for the dead
300 AD. Making the sign of the cross
375 AD. Veneration of angels and dead saints
375 AD. Use of images in worship
394 AD. The mass as a daily celebration
431 AD. The beginning of the exaltation of Mary; The term mother of God applied at the council of Ephesus
526 AD. Extreme Unction. (Last Rites)
593 AD. Doctrine of purgatory
600 AD. Prayers to Mary and dead saints
786 AD. Worship of cross, images and relics
995 AD. Canonization of dead saints
1079 AD. Celibacy of priesthood
1090 AD. The Rosary
1190 AD. Indulgences
1215 AD. Transubstantiation
1215 AD. Auricular confessions of sins to a priest
1120 AD. The adoration of the host
1414 AD. Cup forbidden to the people at communion
1439 AD. Purgatory proclaimed as dogma
1439 AD. The doctrine of the seven sacraments confirmed
1545 AD. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent
1546 AD. Apocryphal books added to the Bible
1854 Immaculate conception of Mary
1870 Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by Vatican Council
1950 Assumption of the Virgin Mary
1965 Mary proclaimed mother of the church

Then what you are telling us is that the popes have been changing doctrine of the Roman Church over the centuries, moving ever further from Biblical teachings. Is that correct?

De Maria

Aug 14, 2008, 09:28 AM

TJ3
Your example seems to make papal infallibility illogical, but our final authority must not be logic or the word of God, it must lie with the traditions of the church (Roman Catholic).
"The Spirit of truth guarantees that when the Pope declares that he is teaching infallibility as Christ’s representative and visible head of the Church on basic matters of faith or morals, he cannot lead the church into error. This gift from the Spirit is called papal infallibility." Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 23

Close but not quite correct. I think you meant to say that our final authority must not be logic or OUR PRIVATE interpretation of the Word of God.

You see, the Traditions of the Church are the Word of God. Therefore our final authority is the Word of God as it is explained by the Church.

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1214295

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 14, 2008, 11:41 AM

You forget that papal infallibility allows for the evolution of doctrine. Some examples of how popes have revealed new truths to the church (Roman Catholic) would include:

New truths? Veneration of angels and dead saints?

LOL!! Ok you got me!

The jig is up. You aren't Catholic. The list below is from an anti-Catholic website entitled

ROMES HERETICAL INVENTIONS
Rome's Heretical Inventions (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:U4GahvUV8QQJ:www.cai.org/files/theme-sheets/en/a2/sa2035au.pdf+375+AD.+Veneration+of+angels+and+dead +saints&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

For a while I thought you were a Catholic who simply misunderstood the Catechism.

Well, let me assure you, the Church does not teach new truths. Everyone of these truths is more ancient than even the Catholic Church:

The following references are from the Old Testament which is Before Christ (i.e. BC).

300 AD. Prayers for the dead

2 Machabees 12 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

300 AD. Making the sign of the cross

Ezechiel 9 4 And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem: and mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn for all the abominations that are committed in the midst thereof.

6 Utterly destroy old and young, maidens, children and women: but upon whomsoever you shall see Thau, kill him not, and begin ye at my sanctuary. So they began at the ancient men who mere before the house.

375 AD. Veneration of angels and dead saints

Correction, the Church teaches that the saints are alive in Christ. It is only Protestant theology that teaches that those who die in Christ do not have eternal life.

1 John 5 13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

And yes we do venerate the Saints because even touching their bones can heal.

4 Kings 13 21 And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.

Josue 5 14 And he answered: No: but I am prince of the host of the Lord, and now I am come.15 Josue fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, add: What saith my lord to his servant?

375 AD. Use of images in worship

1 Kings 4 4 So the people sent to Silo, and they brought from thence the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts sitting upon the cherubims: and the two sons of Heli, Ophni and Phinees, were with the ark of the covenant of God.

Note that both the ark and the cherubims are images.

394 AD. The mass as a daily celebration

Can't go to BC sources for this since Jesus established the Mass. But, the Apostles were already celebrating daily:

Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

431 AD. The beginning of the exaltation of Mary; The term mother of God applied at the council of Ephesus

Again, this is traced to the Apostles.

Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

John 2 1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.

526 AD. Extreme Unction. (Last Rites)

James 5 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

593 AD. Doctrine of purgatory
1 Corinthians 3 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
The Roots of Purgatory (http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp)

600 AD. Prayers to Mary and dead saints

The very first prayer to Mary is recorded in Scripture by St. Luke and it is an angel saying the prayer:

Luke 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And again, those who die in Christ are not dead but have eternal life.

786 AD. Worship of cross, images and relics

We venerate the cross, images and relics of the Saints. The Cross is of course a relic of Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 1 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:

Acts Of Apostles 19 11 And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. 12 So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.

995 AD. Canonization of dead saints

Saints are alive. But yeah, that is true. Before 995, the Saints were canonized by the people based upon their prayers answered. These Saints were remembered by tradition of the faithful.

1079 AD. Celibacy of priesthood

Close to the truth. But not quite true. Celibacy in the priesthood was already voluntary practiced in the time of the Apostles. It was in fact, recommended by St. Paul:

1 Cor 7 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.....32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

However, the Church began to formally enforce the discipline in the Roman rite around the year 1000.

1090 AD. The Rosary

True. Although priests were counting their prayers with beads and stones before Christ. And although the prayers and meditations of the Rosary are in the Bible. The actual entire Rosary was not put together until around the year 1000.

1190 AD. Indulgences

No, actually Jesus makes a pretty good explanation of indulgences here:

Mark 12 43 And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury.

1215 AD. Transubstantiation

Jesus explains transubstantiation here:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

1215 AD. Auricular confessions of sins to a priest

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

1120 AD. The adoration of the host

You must mean apart from the Mass. We have always adored the Host. St. Augustine lived in the early centuries and he said:

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

1414 AD. Cup forbidden to the people at communion

True. That was in response to a heresy which claimed that communion had to be in both forms in order to be effective.

But Jesus said:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever

Therefore eating the Bread of Life fulfills the command.

1439 AD. Purgatory proclaimed as dogma

True, but prayers to the dead that they may be loosed from their sins was taught before Christ as has been shown. And purgatory is described in many places in Scripture. Therefore, proclaiming the dogma simply confirms the ancient teaching.

1439 AD. The doctrine of the seven sacraments confirmed

Correct.

1545 AD. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent

Again simply confirming the Scriptural teaching:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

1546 AD. Apocryphal books added to the Bible

No, this is the approximate year that they were removed from the Bible in Protestant versions. The Catholic Apocrypha have never been in the Bible. What the Protestants call Apocrypha is what Catholics call the Deuterocanonicals. A completely different set of books than the Catholic Apocrypha.

The Deuterocanonicals have always been in the Catholic Bible and were first removed from the Jewish version of the Scriptures in 100 ad. The reason they took them out is because they were in the version used by Jesus Christ whom they detested.

However, Christians kept them in the Bible until the time of Luther. Unbelievably, Luther then proceeded to take them out. He also wanted to throw out St. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews but there was too much resistance to that idea so he was forced to keep them in the Bible.

Anyway, the Catholic Bible containing 73 books has been so since 300 ad when the Catholic Church canonized the bible:

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
The Canon of the Bible (http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm)

1854 Immaculate conception of Mary

This is inferred from Scripture:
Genesis 3
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

and has been taught by Christians from the early centuries:
The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

1870 Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by Vatican Council

True. That is from Scripture:

Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

1950 Assumption of the Virgin Mary

Apocalypse 12 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

1965 Mary proclaimed mother of the church

From Scripture:
Apocalypse 12 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 14, 2008, 11:49 AM

Close but not quite correct. I think you meant to say that our final authority must not be logic or OUR PRIVATE interpretation of the Word of God.

You conceded yesterday that your denomination promotes man's understanding which is private interpretation. So are you saying that your denomination is wrong?

You see, the Traditions of the Church are the Word of God. Therefore our final authority is the Word of God as it is explained by the Church.

They cannot both be - we have shown contradictions. God does not contradict Himself.

Peter Wilson

Aug 16, 2008, 07:16 AM

De Maria, I think that your problem is that you don't have a relationship with Jesus, you don't even know Him.
You may know about Him, but you don't really KNOW Him as you best friend, some-one whom you would confide in, before you you seek advice from anybody else.
But you DO have religion, BOY, do you have religion!
I went onto a Catholic website and was reading the Catechism, it truly is mesmerizing.
I can see how people want to accept it as truth, it sure fits with what Paul said to Timothy about the last days, 2 Tim 4
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
And as he writes in Timothy about the end time church,"having a form of godliness but denying the power there-of."
Where's the power in your church, when was the last time some-one was healed or delivered from demons or raised from the dead.
From the Florida revivals, the last count was 16 people raised from the dead!
Of course, you would deny that power, why, you might say, would God work miracles in a "Prostestant" Church and not the Catholic Church.
I will give you a hint, because His power is not there!
You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus, or else He will say,

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Get to know Jesus as your best friend, it's a must!

Peace.:)

De Maria

Aug 24, 2008, 12:18 PM

You conceded yesterday that your denomination promotes man's understanding which is private interpretation.

Nope. Where is it written that man's understanding MEANS private interpretation. Are you a man? Do you understand the Scripture? Then you have a man's understanding of Scripture.

So your statement is proven false. Obviously, every Christian must have an understanding of the Word of God. And Scripture ITSELF commands that we must obey those men whom have been appointed our leaders:

Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

They cannot both be - we have shown contradictions. God does not contradict Himself.

Read my comments which you quoted. I said that the Word of God is final authority. I didn't say that man's understanding was final authority. Obviously there can only be ONE final authority. But there can be many authorities at different levels. God has said that we must obey and follow the faith of our leaders as I've proven above. And there are many prooftexts which tell us that we must obey our leaders. Nowhere did I say that they were both final authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 24, 2008, 12:35 PM

Nope. Where is it written that man's understanding MEANS private interpretation.

Look at the context of the passage. It is contrasting private interpretation to the teachings of men.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Are you a man? Do you understand the Scripture? Then you have a man's understanding of Scripture.

I do not rely on my understanding for truth. I submit my understanding to the word of God.

So your statement is proven false. Obviously, every Christian must have an understanding of the Word of God. And Scripture ITSELF commands that we must obey those men whom have been appointed our leaders:

Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Sigh! Do you think that the more times that you repeat it, the more likely that we will be to ignore the context?

First let's look at a better translation:

Heb 13:7-10
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.
NKJV

This refers to those who know and teach the word of God. I therefore do not need to follow those who do not faithfully teach the word of God. Second, why do you follow them? To learn sound doctrine so that you are not carried away by false teachings.

Nowhere does this say or even suggest that we must obey the church leaders blindly.

Read my comments which you quoted. I said that the Word of God is final authority. I didn't say that man's understanding was final authority. Obviously there can only be ONE final authority.

Good. Then you will agree that where your tradition, or the teachings of your denomination conflict with scripture, scripture is the standard that you are to follow.

De Maria

Aug 24, 2008, 01:16 PM

Look at the context of the passage. It is contrasting private interpretation to the teachings of men.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

You make the illogical assumption that all traditions are traditions of men. You also make the illogical assumption that all understanding of men is in opposition to the Word of God.

However, that is not the case. That is why we are told to follow the understanding of our leaders.

I do not rely on my understanding for truth. I submit my understanding to the word of God.

You make the illogical assumption that your interpretation of Scripture is actually Scripture. But in fact, your interpretation of Scripture frequently contradicts Scripture.

Sigh! Do you think that the more times that you repeat it, the more likely that we will be to ignore the context?

First let's look at a better translation:

Heb 13:7-10
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.
NKJV

This refers to those who know and teach the word of God.

Correct. So you admit that we must obey and follow those who know and teach the Word of God?

I therefore do not need to follow those who do not faithfully teach the word of God.

In other words, if they don't agree with you, they are not following the Word of God. Again you equate your interpretation to the Word of God. But Scripture says you must bring them to the Church (Matt 18:17)

Second, why do you follow them? To learn sound doctrine so that you are not carried away by false teachings.

Correct. But I follow them? Do you? Or do you simply follow your own interpretations?

Nowhere does this say or even suggest that we must obey the church leaders blindly.

Nowhere did I suggest that either.

Good. Then you will agree that where your tradition, or the teachings of your denomination conflict with scripture, scripture is the standard that you are to follow.

The Catholic Church does not contradict Scripture. The Catholic Church is the Pillar of Truth.

Since Jesus Christ established a Tradition of a Teaching Church and gave that Church the authority and power to determine who believes and who doesn't, I will follow the teachings of that Church regardless of how others in conflict with that Church interpret the Scriptures.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 24, 2008, 01:27 PM

You make the illogical assumption that all traditions are traditions of men. You also make the illogical assumption that all understanding of men is in opposition to the Word of God.

If you claim otherwise, it is up to you to establish that from scripture.

You make the illogical assumption that your interpretation of Scripture is actually Scripture.

Where did I say that? I said the exact opposite in fact. Can we at least be honest in our discussions?

Correct. So you admit that we must obey and follow those who know and teach the Word of God?

I note that you add to what scripture said. So no. But if you say that we must, then because I teach the word of God, you must obey me - right?

The Catholic Church does not contradict Scripture. The Catholic Church is the Pillar of Truth.

The contradictions could fill several books, and your other comment is one of the contradictions.

I will follow the teachings of that Church regardless of how others in conflict with that Church interpret the Scriptures.

That means that your denomination is your standard of doctrine - mine is the Bible. That is where the root of our disagreement lies, and that is evidence of the contradictions between scripture and your denominational teachings.

De Maria

Aug 24, 2008, 08:13 PM

If you claim otherwise, it is up to you to establish that from scripture.

Sure. Not all traditions are traditions of men:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

The understanding of men is not always opposed to God:
Exodus 31 1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Behold, I have called by name Beseleel the son of Uri the son of Hur of the tribe of Juda, 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, and knowledge in all manner of work.

1 Corinthians 14 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding.

Ephesians 5 17 Wherefore become not unwise, but understanding what is the will of God.

Philippians 1 9 And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge, and in all understanding:

Therefore, your stance that all traditions are traditions of men and that all understanding of men is against God is illogical and against Scripture.

Where did I say that? I said the exact opposite in fact. Can we at least be honest in our discussions?

Every time I disagree with you, you claim I disagree with Scripture. But it isn't Scripture with whom I disagree but with your interpretation.

I note that you add to what scripture said. So no. But if you say that we must, then because I teach the word of God, you must obey me - right?

You don't teach the Word of God. You teach your interpretation of the Word of God.

On the other hand, because I obey the Scriptures, I obey the Church and the leaders appointed therein which you counsel me to disobey in contradiction of Scripture.

The contradictions could fill several books, and your other comment is one of the contradictions.

I only contradict you and those who contradict Scripture.

That means that your denomination is your standard of doctrine - mine is the Bible.

No, your standard is your personal interpretation of Scripture.

My standard is the one set by Scripture:

1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

That is where the root of our disagreement lies, and that is evidence of the contradictions between scripture and your denominational teachings.

Correct. The root of our disagreement is your insistence on interpreting Scripture independently of the Church. It is your embrace of a tradition of men called Sola Scriptura.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 24, 2008, 08:24 PM

Sure. Not all traditions are traditions of men:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

But note that this refers to what the Apostles taught in two forms, written and oral, and they are no longer here, so we have the written and the Biblical command not to go beyond what is written

The understanding of men is not always opposed to God:
Exodus 31 1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Behold, I have called by name Beseleel the son of Uri the son of Hur of the tribe of Juda, 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, and knowledge in all manner of work.

It was God's spirit who gave them the understanding - it was not their understanding. Perhaps you missed that important detail.

Every time I disagree with you, you claim I disagree with Scripture. But it isn't Scripture with whom I disagree but with your interpretation.

Then you should be able to deal with the issue solely from a scriptural perspective, without relying upon your denominations interpretation.

You don't teach the Word of God. You teach your interpretation of the Word of God.

God is my judge not you. God does not like those who want to take his place.

On the other hand, because I obey the Scriptures, I obey the Church and the leaders appointed therein which you counsel me to disobey in contradiction of Scripture.

If your denomination teaches contrary to scripture, then it is not only acceptable, but Biblical to stand with God's word rather than the teachings of men.

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 08:26 AM

But note that this refers to what the Apostles taught in two forms, written and oral, and they are no longer here, so we have the written and the Biblical command not to go beyond what is written

But they passed on the Tradition.
2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

And that is exactly what the Church continues to do.

It was God's spirit who gave them the understanding - it was not their understanding. Perhaps you missed that important detail.

No I didn't. But perhaps you don't understand your own words. God gave them understanding. Therefore, they taught according to their understanding:

1 Corinthians 14 19 But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also; than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Then you should be able to deal with the issue solely from a scriptural perspective, without relying upon your denominations interpretation.

I have provided the verse which supports everyone of my arguments. I have also pointed out the error in your interpretation of the same verses.

God is my judge not you.

But I do judge whom I will believe. The Bible tells me not to be instructed by those who will twist the Word of God:

2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

God does not like those who want to take his place.

Exactly my point.

If your denomination teaches contrary to scripture,

Which it does not.

then it is not only acceptable, but Biblical to stand with God's word rather than the teachings of men.

First you need to distinguish between your own interpretations and the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 26, 2008, 05:17 PM

But they passed on the Tradition.
2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

So lets' see - you redefine "tradition as teaching and preaching and then claim that if anyone teaches or preaches that is proof of your denominations tradition being scriptural.

Well, I can defend my position without the need to change definitions.

I have provided the verse which supports everyone of my arguments. I have also pointed out the error in your interpretation of the same verses.

In your own mind perhaps - but note above - you change word definitions to try to get scripture to support your private interpretation.

But I do judge whom I will believe. The Bible tells me not to be instructed by those who will twist the Word of God:

2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

So when the teachings of your denomination contradict scripture, why do you accept their words?

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 08:42 PM

So lets' see - you redefine "tradition as teaching and preaching and then claim that if anyone teaches or preaches that is proof of your denominations tradition being scriptural.

Yes. But more than that. I claim that any Sola Scripturist who claims that we only need the Bible because the Bible is perfectly clear and the only source of doctrine is contradicting himself in his behavior. Because in so teaching, he is putting himself beside the Bible and in teaching doctrine he is putting himself above the Bible. Therefore, he doesn't really believe in the Bible alone, but in his interpretation of the Bible.

Well, I can defend my position without the need to change definitions.

You haven't made a very good defense yet. You just keep asserting that you have, but the logic and intelligence of the Catholic position has derailed you continually.

In your own mind perhaps - but note above - you change word definitions to try to get scripture to support your private interpretation.

That is a simple assertion of yours without any proof. I've refuted it above as well.

So when the teachings of your denomination contradict scripture,

The teachings of the Catholic Church do not contradict Scripture.

why do you accept their words?

Because they are the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 26, 2008, 08:50 PM

Yes. But more than that. I claim that any Sola Scripturist who claims that we only need the Bible because the Bible is perfectly clear and the only source of doctrine is contradicting himself in his behavior. Because in so teaching, he is putting himself beside the Bible and in teaching doctrine he is putting himself above the Bible. Therefore, he doesn't really believe in the Bible alone, but in his interpretation of the Bible.

That proves exactly what I said - you don't even know what sola scriptura is. Other than other hand, you DO promotes man's understanding and you follow man's private interpretation by following whatever your denomination says is the right interpretation.

I submit myself to God's word.

You haven't made a very good defense yet. You just keep asserting that you have, but the logic and intelligence of the Catholic position has derailed you continually.

I would not expect you to say anything else.

The teachings of the Catholic Church do not contradict Scripture.

On this board, several doctrines of you denomination have been shown to be at direct odds with scripture.

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 09:14 PM

De Maria, I think that your problem is that you don't have a relationship with Jesus, you don't even know Him.

You are wrong. I not only know Jesus Christ but I know His whole family. I know His Father, I feel His Spirit, I know His mother, I know His human step-father, I know His brothers who have died for Him and with Him.

I'm afraid it is you, who reject all who love Jesus who will find that Jesus is not too happy about that. I wonder what you'll say when you meet Him on Judgement day and He asks, did you keep the Commandment to honor my mother? And you'll look befuddled like the rest of the goats and say, "But when did I meet your mother?" And He'll say, if you didn't honor the woman who gave me life, then you didn't honor me. Get away from me you worker of iniquity.

You may know about Him, but you don't really KNOW Him as you best friend,

I know Him as my Brother. We share the same Father and Mother. We share the same Flesh and Blood which He gives me in the Holy Eucharist. We share the same Spirit.

some-one whom you would confide in, before you you seek advice from anybody else.

I am in communion with Jesus Christ 24/7.

But you DO have religion, BOY, do you have religion!

Thanks be to God who gave us His religion that we may honor and glorify Him as He wants to be honored and glorified.

I went onto a Catholic website and was reading the Catechism, it truly is mesmerizing. I can see how people want to accept it as truth, it sure fits with what Paul said to Timothy about the last days,

You're mistaken. The Catholic Church teaches the highest morality of any other religion. It is the morality of Jesus Christ. This is the reason why you and others like you have abandoned the Catholic Church. You can't live up to the moral precepts which She teaches and so you say, "I'm outa here!"

I have wood in my eye on that score as well. But I came back and God has showered graces upon me. THANKS BE TO GOD!! I have to this day, lived more successfully in the moral precepts of the Church. I pray that God keep me there.

2 Tim 4
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

This is the truth. It is Protestants who embraced the following innovations which are against Scripture:

1. Sola Scriptura
2. Sola Fide
3. Divorce
4. Contraception

And there are many others far worse which are embraced by certain groups of Protestants. But the above are fairly universal in the Protestant Community.

And as he writes in Timothy about the end time church,"having a form of godliness but denying the power there-of."

Again, it is Protestants who deny that God can authorize men to have authority over us. Although that is clear in Scripture. It is Protestants who deny that God can establish an infallible Church.

But Catholics do not deny the omnipotence of God.

Where's the power in your church, when was the last time some-one was healed or delivered from demons or raised from the dead.

Virtually everyday these miracles occur in our Church. Throughout the world, it is the Catholic Church which proclaims the most miracles but Protestants proclaim them works of Satan. Have you heard of Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorie, Guadalupe, and on and on.

From the Florida revivals, the last count was 16 people raised from the dead!

I'd like to see the coroners reports.

Of course, you would deny that power, why, you might say, would God work miracles in a "Prostestant" Church and not the Catholic Church.

Certainly not. The Holy Spirit blows where it will. But in the Catholic Church we test every Spirit in accordance to the teaching of Scripture. Whereas in the Protestant arena, every Tom, and Harry who proclaims a miracle is believed as though it were Gospel. Forgetting that Jesus Himself said:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

I will give you a hint, because His power is not there!

Who are you except a self appointed anti-Catholic? Why should I believe you over the Word of God?

You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus, or else He will say,

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

I do have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is why I know and love His entire family. On the other hand, you don't.

And thanks for confirming that I know my religion. I got that way because I believe and obey the Word of God which says:

2 Timothy 2 15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Get to know Jesus as your best friend, it's a must!

I suggest you take your own advice. Remember, he who abandons the mother ends up abandoning the Son.

Peace.:)

To you as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria