John 6 and the bread from heaven

[Eternally Grateful]

I think EG is proving and disproving the Real Presence at the same time.

Lol

i think you all are unable to look at the chart and tell me where i am wrong.

i am not sure if it is because you are literally unable to (although i believe this is true)

or because you have so much blind faith in men who tell you what to believe that you will not even try. Because you do not feel you have too..

You can not tell someone they are wrong. And then fail to show why or how in the passage.,

i am going to assume that the chart about the Eucharist teaching is correct. Because none of you have told me otherwise.

so we in the room can decide. What god is really saying, and what a few churches think he is saying, and decide for ourselves.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That would make him a Catholic.

Nope. Actually a lot of catholic doctrine rejects the literal interpretation of the word. Only when it suits them will they take him literally

Why are you unable to speak on my last post? Or the one before that? Or the several pages before that?

this is MY thread. and I am talking about John 6. Why are you unable to speak about john 6 (not your 5 pet verses) but the passage as a whole

Can you document this alleged "false church" with scholarly primary and/or secondary sources or do just have bad manners?

again, Can you show me where I am wrong?

I have many on ignore who jump from one stupid insult after another. I am not obligated to address every child in this thread.

Yet you are acting like a child.. Because you do not like what I am saying.. I just want to discuss the word. You want to discuss a church.

Sometimes I click on "show ignored content", for a peek. Same old boring arguments that have been refuted for centuries.

Refuted?

You have not refuted anything I have said. Non of you have.. Same old arguments that you have been making for centuries.. which do not support your view.

Look at my chart again

One has jesus literal words

One adds words to what jesus said.

One is what jesus said, one is not.

tell me which one, and why..

I have been told I take jesus out of Context

Look at john 6 as a whole and show me where i got the context messed up?

 

[Augustin56]

Tell me where i read it out of context? Show me the context?

You can’t just say you took it out of context. Then fail to show how he did that.

if anything, your focused on 5 verses out of how many?

The Bible, to be interpreted correctly, must always be read through the lens of the Church. That means Holy Tradition (aka oral tradition that St. Paul talks about in 2 Thes. 2:15) and the living magisterium of the Church (the Pope and bishops in union with him), who have Christ's authority to teach and preach. One of the big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism has to do with authority. Authority is given. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles to teach, preach, forgive sins, confect the Sacraments, etc. The Apostles, in turn, gave this authority to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise through the centuries for about 2000 years now. Protestantism, which began in the 16th century, took upon themselves what they mistakenly thought was authority. It was not given to them, so it's really just power.

If you want to effectively and accurately understand Scripture, I recommend you read an follow the guidelines in this document: Dei verbum

It's not long (about 6 chapters) and can probably be read in one sitting. Otherwise, you're just taking a haphazard guess, open to all sorts of errors.

 

[Augustin56]

Nope. Actually a lot of catholic doctrine rejects the literal interpretation of the word. Only when it suits them will they take him literally

this is MY thread. and I am talking about John 6. Why are you unable to speak about john 6 (not your 5 pet verses) but the passage as a whole



again, Can you show me where I am wrong?

Yet you are acting like a child.. Because you do not like what I am saying.. I just want to discuss the word. You want to discuss a church.



Refuted?

You have not refuted anything I have said. Non of you have.. Same old arguments that you have been making for centuries.. which do not support your view.

Look at my chart again

One has jesus literal words

One adds words to what jesus said.

One is what jesus said, one is not.

tell me which one, and why..

I have been told I take jesus out of Context

Look at john 6 as a whole and show me where i got the context messed up?

The Bible is more like a library than a single book. Libraries have books in different genres. Some are allegorical, some historical, some poetry, etc.

It depends on the intent of the particular biblical author. If he intended what he wrote to be taken literally, then we should take it literally. If he meant for it to be taken symbolically, then that’s how we should take it. Although this principle is easy to state, it isn’t always easy to apply. Some things in the Bible, such as the parables of Jesus, are clearly symbolic, but what about other things, such as Christ's words about the Eucharist in John 6? Are they to be taken literally or symbolically? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans, and many Anglicans take them literally. Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and other Protestants do not.

Yet all Christians claim Christ’s words, as well as the tenor of the New Testament, support their belief, and all claim to know what Christ intended when he spoke them. How do we decide who’s right?

Based on literary and historical analysis, scholars often can determine how the biblical writer wanted his words to be understood. This is why in studying Scripture we should familiarize ourselves with its literary and historical background.

Still, scholarship alone can’t solve all of our interpretative problems. There are scholars, for instance, who affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and those who deny it, just as there are those who think the New Testament teaches distinctively Catholic beliefs and those who don’t.

Because of the possibility (and frequency) of such scholarly impasses, the Catholic Church insists that Christ established the magisterium—the teaching authority of the Church given her by Christ, to propound biblical truth infallibly. The authentic explanation of the biblical message has been left neither to our own meager interpretive abilities, nor to the greater, yet still finite, exegetical skills of scholars, but has been safeguarded by God himself, through His Church, which St. Paul refers to as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Bible, to be interpreted correctly, must always be read through the lens of the Church. That means Holy Tradition (aka oral tradition that St. Paul talks about in 2 Thes. 2:15) and the living magisterium of the Church (the Pope and bishops in union with him), who have Christ's authority to teach and preach. One of the big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism has to do with authority. Authority is given. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles to teach, preach, forgive sins, confect the Sacraments, etc. The Apostles, in turn, gave this authority to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise through the centuries for about 2000 years now. Protestantism, which began in the 16th century, took upon themselves what they mistakenly thought was authority. It was not given to them, so it's really just power.

If you want to effectively and accurately understand Scripture, I recommend you read an follow the guidelines in this document: Dei verbum

It's not long (about 6 chapters) and can probably be read in one sitting. Otherwise, you're just taking a haphazard guess, open to all sorts of errors.

So you tell me i take it put of context.

but can not tell me where or why?

and I am supposed to drop everything and say your right?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Bible is more like a library than a single book. Libraries have books in different genres. Some are allegorical, some historical, some poetry, etc.

It depends on the intent of the particular biblical author. If he intended what he wrote to be taken literally, then we should take it literally. If he meant for it to be taken symbolically, then that’s how we should take it. Although this principle is easy to state, it isn’t always easy to apply. Some things in the Bible, such as the parables of Jesus, are clearly symbolic, but what about other things, such as Christ's words about the Eucharist in John 6? Are they to be taken literally or symbolically? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans, and many Anglicans take them literally. Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and other Protestants do not.

Yet all Christians claim Christ’s words, as well as the tenor of the New Testament, support their belief, and all claim to know what Christ intended when he spoke them. How do we decide who’s right?

Based on literary and historical analysis, scholars often can determine how the biblical writer wanted his words to be understood. This is why in studying Scripture we should familiarize ourselves with its literary and historical background.

Still, scholarship alone can’t solve all of our interpretative problems. There are scholars, for instance, who affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and those who deny it, just as there are those who think the New Testament teaches distinctively Catholic beliefs and those who don’t.

Because of the possibility (and frequency) of such scholarly impasses, the Catholic Church insists that Christ established the magisterium—the teaching authority of the Church given her by Christ, to propound biblical truth infallibly. The authentic explanation of the biblical message has been left neither to our own meager interpretive abilities, nor to the greater, yet still finite, exegetical skills of scholars, but has been safeguarded by God himself, through His Church, which St. Paul refers to as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15.

Many parts of scripture are self relevant,

I think I have shown by the john road that these are Stan d along passages.

when you try to use other passages to support a view, yet those passages, like here, contradict each other, as i have shown, you have an issue,

 

[Augustin56]

Many parts of scripture are self relevant,

I think I have shown by the john road that these are Stan d along passages.

when you try to use other passages to support a view, yet those passages, like here, contradict each other, as i have shown, you have an issue,

The Bible was always intended to be read in the context of the whole, in light of Holy Tradition (aka, oral tradition spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Thes. 2:15), and in light of the Magisterium of the Church - the living authority given the Church by Christ. (Easiest way to understand the Magisterium is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nothing in the Catechism contradicts anything in the Bible, when properly interpreted. And vice versa. The only contradictions an individual can find is via his or her own personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21 (for obvious reasons).

Yes, there are passages that can be easily interpreted, but there are many that cannot. As Gal. 1:8 says, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! So, it's not just a matter of taste or personal opinion if we get something wrong. It's serious. Anything you interpret that contradicts what has always been taught, should result in throwing out your interpretation and trying to see where you strayed, not where the Church strayed. Christ promised to protect His Church from doctrinal error. (Not administrative error, or personal sin of individuals within the Church.)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Bible was always intended to be read in the context of the whole, in light of Holy Tradition (aka, oral tradition spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Thes. 2:15), and in light of the Magisterium of the Church - the living authority given the Church by Christ. (Easiest way to understand the Magisterium is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nothing in the Catechism contradicts anything in the Bible, when properly interpreted. And vice versa. The only contradictions an individual can find is via his or her own personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21 (for obvious reasons).

Yes, there are passages that can be easily interpreted, but there are many that cannot. As Gal. 1:8 says, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! So, it's not just a matter of taste or personal opinion if we get something wrong. It's serious. Anything you interpret that contradicts what has always been taught, should result in throwing out your interpretation and trying to see where you strayed, not where the Church strayed. Christ promised to protect His Church from doctrinal error. (Not administrative error, or personal sin of individuals within the Church.)

You have yet to show me how John 6 is not?

don’t work for food which perishes, but food which endures to eternal life

what so hard about this sentence?

 

[amigo de christo]

Many parts of scripture are self relevant,

I think I have shown by the john road that these are Stan d along passages.

when you try to use other passages to support a view, yet those passages, like here, contradict each other, as i have shown, you have an issue,

Trivia question time .
How does one know when a person is doing just what you wrote . using other passages to support a view of men
rather than TRUTH . We can known and discern when this is occuring real easy .
But i allow you to answer first .

 

[amigo de christo]

So you tell me i take it put of context.

but can not tell me where or why?

and I am supposed to drop everything and say your right?

many make that very claim . For they say YE TAKE it out of context .
And boy do i , and do i mean , many DO THIS indeed .
Many have already taken the scrips OUT of context to support a view of men that was not taught by the early church .
They too will say and say boldy to others , YE are taking this out of context , come sit under my teacher and my scholars
and they shall guide you into the truth and context of what it means . AND YET the KEY IS
they contradict WHAT IT SAYS and what other places also say . THAT IS HOW YE SHALL KNOW that something has went
and is DEAD WRONG . my advice remains the same . LET US read the bible for ourselves .

 

[amigo de christo]

You have yet to show me how John 6 is not?

don’t work for food which perishes, but food which endures to eternal life

what so hard about this sentence?

My words are SPIRIT and they are LIFE . THERES THE KEY RIGHT THERE . as i am sure you already know .
Notice He , as in JESUS , did not say mens words are spirit and they are life , just go sit under
one who claims to be of the church . Fact IS , HE warned us to test all men . SOMETHING many indeed have not done.
You have a blessed day now .

 

[amigo de christo]

The Bible, to be interpreted correctly, must always be read through the lens of the Church. That means Holy Tradition (aka oral tradition that St. Paul talks about in 2 Thes. 2:15) and the living magisterium of the Church (the Pope and bishops in union with him), who have Christ's authority to teach and preach. One of the big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism has to do with authority. Authority is given. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles to teach, preach, forgive sins, confect the Sacraments, etc. The Apostles, in turn, gave this authority to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise through the centuries for about 2000 years now. Protestantism, which began in the 16th century, took upon themselves what they mistakenly thought was authority. It was not given to them, so it's really just power.

If you want to effectively and accurately understand Scripture, I recommend you read an follow the guidelines in this document: Dei verbum

It's not long (about 6 chapters) and can probably be read in one sitting. Otherwise, you're just taking a haphazard guess, open to all sorts of errors.

READ your first line . AND THAT is why deception came .
YOU DO realize the JEHOVAH WITNESS would say the identical thing you just did . YOU have to learn it through OUR CHURCH
as do many others . AND THAT is why CHRISTENDOM is in the MESS it is today .
THAT IS WHY CHRISTENDOM and ALL RELIGIONS , the WORLD as ONE , will soon merge as one
as ONE under what it thinks is love and GOD . ONLY, ITS THE DRAGON and his version of love . WE BETTER GET IN THE BIBLE MY FRIEND
and do so REAL FAST .

 

[Augustin56]

READ your first line . AND THAT is why deception came .
YOU DO realize the JEHOVAH WITNESS would say the identical thing you just did . YOU have to learn it through OUR CHURCH
as do many others . AND THAT is why CHRISTENDOM is in the MESS it is today .
THAT IS WHY CHRISTENDOM and ALL RELIGIONS , the WORLD as ONE , will soon merge as one
as ONE under what it thinks is love and GOD . ONLY, ITS THE DRAGON and his version of love . WE BETTER GET IN THE BIBLE MY FRIEND
and do so REAL FAST .

The difference is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is different in nature than every Protestant church. Every Protestant church was founded by some mere man (or woman), based on their personal interpretation of Scripture, with no consideration towards the oral teachings (2 Thes 2:15) that have been taught.

The alternative is each individual claiming to be his/her own Pope with infallibility in teaching Christ's doctrine. Sounds like you ascribe to the latter.

 

[Cyd]

The difference is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is different in nature than every Protestant church. Every Protestant church was founded by some mere man (or woman), based on their personal interpretation of Scripture, with no consideration towards the oral teachings (2 Thes 2:15) that have been taught.

The alternative is each individual claiming to be his/her own Pope with infallibility in teaching Christ's doctrine. Sounds like you ascribe to the latter.

Then you don't believe this?
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Then you don't believe this?
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I love your style, sister !

 

[Augustin56]

Then you don't believe this?
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Great Scripture quote! Now, let's put it in context!

To whom was Jesus telling this? The crowds? The public? No. He was speaking to the Apostles at the Last Supper! The first hierarchy of His Church!

Remember, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach all that He had taught them. (See Matt. 28:20) That's a pretty tall order for a human being, unless he has the help of the Holy Spirit!

 

[Cyd]

Great Scripture quote! Now, let's put it in context!

To whom was Jesus telling this? The crowds? The public? No. He was speaking to the Apostles at the Last Supper! The first hierarchy of His Church!

Remember, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach all that He had taught them. (See Matt. 28:20) That's a pretty tall order for a human being, unless he has the help of the Holy Spirit!

Since you brought us chapter 13 of John you will notice the word disciple is used which I am Sir that is given to disciples. I am sorry your church does not consider John 13 and 14 for you. John 17 made it clear it all applies to all that hear through them.
What other chapters does your church say are not for you?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Trivia question time .
How does one know when a person is doing just what you wrote . using other passages to support a view of men
rather than TRUTH . We can known and discern when this is occuring real easy .
But i allow you to answer first .

One one passage says one thing.. And another person has to go to another passage to make the origional passage say what that person wants it to say. But it does nto actually say this, that would be a clue..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

many make that very claim . For they say YE TAKE it out of context .
And boy do i , and do i mean , many DO THIS indeed .
Many have already taken the scrips OUT of context to support a view of men that was not taught by the early church .
They too will say and say boldy to others , YE are taking this out of context , come sit under my teacher and my scholars
and they shall guide you into the truth and context of what it means . AND YET the KEY IS
they contradict WHAT IT SAYS and what other places also say . THAT IS HOW YE SHALL KNOW that something has went
and is DEAD WRONG . my advice remains the same . LET US read the bible for ourselves .

All he has to do is show me where I took it out of Context.. Have not seen it yet..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The gospel according to John.. Quite clear..

John 1
What we do	What you will receive
Vs 12 Receive him	Become Child of God
Vs 12 Believe	Become Child of God
John 3
As Israel looked to the serpent, Look to the cross	Never perish
As Israel looked to the serpent, Look to the cross	Have eternal life
Believe	Never perish
Believe	Have eternal life
Believe	No longer condemned
Fail to believe	Continue in condemnation
John 3 John the baptist
Believe	Eternal life
Not believe	Not see life
Not believe	Wrath of God
John 4 Water at the well
Ask	Living water
Drink living water	Never thirst
Drink living water	Have Eternal life
John 5
Hear my word	Eternal life
Believe	Eternal life
Hear my word	Pass from death to life
Believe	Pass from death to life
Hear my word	Not come under judgment
Believe	Not come under judgement
John 6 and the bread from heaven
Food which endures forever	What you will receive
Vs35 Comes to me	Never hunger
Vs 35 Believes in Me	Never thirst
vs 37 come to me	will by no means cast out
vs 40 see and believes in the son	Eternal life will be risen on the last day
vs 40 see and believes in the son	will be risen on the last day
vs 47 Believes in me	Has eternal life
vs 50 Eat the living bread	Not die
Vs 51 Eat the living bread	live forever
Vs 54 Eats flesh and blood	Has eternal life
Vs 54 Eats flesh and blood	Will be raised on the last day
vs 56 Eat flesh and blood	Abides in Christ and Christ in us
vs 57 Feed on him	Will live
vs 58 Eat this bread	Will live forever