Not By Works

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,260
113
How old were you and how much of a Catholic education did you have?
I was 28yrs old when I was born again, and I've had no Catholic education at all. Half of my family was Catholic but I was born again and grew up in my faith at a Non-denominational Christian Church.

I can appreciate where you are coming from because our Church would accommodate about 6,000 parishioner's every Sunday Morning for Worship Services. And frequently our Pastor would welcome visiting Catholic Priest's who were interested in learning about scripture from a protestant perspective.

The Catholic liturgy is foreign to my way of thinking and aside from my family you are the first devout practicing Catholic I have had contact with since that time, way back when. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

God bless!
 

Metternich

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2018
216
10
18
I was 28yrs old when I was born again, and I've had no Catholic education at all. Half of my family was Catholic but I was born again and grew up in my faith at a Non-denominational Christian Church.

I can appreciate where you are coming from because our Church would accommodate about 6,000 parishioner's every Sunday Morning for Worship Services. And frequently our Pastor would welcome visiting Catholic Priest's who were interested in learning about scripture from a protestant perspective.

The Catholic liturgy is foreign to my way of thinking and aside from my family you are the first devout practicing Catholic I have had contact with since that time, way back when. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

God bless!
I posted this in another thread but will paste it here to let you know my story.

I was born into a Catholic family and was baptized a few days after birth. Just before I started school my parents taught me the basic Catholic prayers then I started Catholic school. We were taught the Catholic faith but there was no appeal to scripture to back up doctrines. We just accepted what we were told as fact.

When I was about 12 years old I first became aware that there were Christians that did not believe the same truths we had been taught. A local Church of Christ took out ads in the newspaper attacking Catholic beliefs. It did not affect me.

In college I got to know more about what Bible Christians taught about justification. It did not ring true and what the Catholic church taught made more sense.

When I was about 35 I think it was something on the Catholic television station EWTN that inspired me to read the Bible for the first time. I read it from cover to cover. I subscribed to Catholic Answers magazine. They had really good articles teaching about various Catholic beliefs and backing it up with scripture. I also became aware of several great Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid and many more. I read their books which basically did what Catholic Answers magazine did but with more detail.

Some subjects were too difficult for me to understand. I understood it from Catholic teaching but I could not find clear concise info in the Bible to back it up.

One thing I did become sure of was that the doctrine of OSAS was false. This is clearly taught in 2 Pet 2:20-23

20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire

It is beyond question that these people start out justified because Peter says they escaped (past tense) the defilements of the world through the knowledge of Jesus. He says then if they again become entangled in the defilements of the world this condition is worse than if they had never been saved. We know those who do not believe go to hell so those who fall away into sin after being saved go to a lower place in hell.

Another thing my Bible study convinced me of is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and it forgives sins. You will of course cite the thief on the cross. He did not have the opportunity for Baptism so he received the Baptism of desire. God is greater than his commands and so he saved the thief. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is no where more clearly stated than in Mk 16:16

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

What could be clearer? Yet Bible Christians twist this verse to their own destruction and say it does not require Baptism.

Another verse is Acts 2:38

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The definition of the bold face “for” is key. In English for has several meanings. Bible Christians say it means because your sins have been forgiven you should be baptized. The underlying Greek word (eis) however does not have multiple meanings. Let’s look at another use of this word in scripture.

Mt 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins

The bold faced “for” is (eis) in Greek. In this context no one can deny that the blood of Christ leads to the forgiveness of sins. So in Acts 2:38 baptism leads to the forgiveness of sins.

Continue....
 

Metternich

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2018
216
10
18
I was 28yrs old when I was born again, and I've had no Catholic education at all. Half of my family was Catholic but I was born again and grew up in my faith at a Non-denominational Christian Church.

I can appreciate where you are coming from because our Church would accommodate about 6,000 parishioner's every Sunday Morning for Worship Services. And frequently our Pastor would welcome visiting Catholic Priest's who were interested in learning about scripture from a protestant perspective.

The Catholic liturgy is foreign to my way of thinking and aside from my family you are the first devout practicing Catholic I have had contact with since that time, way back when. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

God bless!
A uniquely Catholic doctrine is that of the Eucharist. A couple of things need to be established before we get into the text in question Jn 6:51-69. First, recorded in the Gospels in a couple of places Jesus says something figurative and his disciples misunderstand and take him literally. Jesus does not leave them in ignorance but corrects them. The first example occurs in Mt 16:5-12. The disciples have forgotten to bring bread on their journey. Jesus then tells them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, The disciples think he has said this because they forgot to bring bread. Jesus then explains clearly that he is not talking about bread but the teachings of the Pharisees. The next example is Jn 4:31-34. Here again Jesus speaks about food in a figurative way. The disciples encourage Jesus to eat something. Jesus says he has food to eat. The disciples think someone else had brought him food. Jesus then tells them that his food is to do the will of his Father.

Second, the most controversial thing Jesus says in this discourse is that we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. This is biblical metaphorical language. It means to violently assault someone. Here are some examples. Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Micah 3:2-3

Third, is the word “eat”. This passage has numerous occurrences of this word or a form of it. Although it is translated as eat there are two different greek words used. One is phago. This is the ordinary word used for human eating and in this passage the most used. The other greek word is trogo. It means to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables. It is also used for animals feeding. You can see the detailed definitions below from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon

5315 ἐσθίω [phago /fag·o/] v. A primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); GK 2266; 97 occurrences; AV translates as “eat” 94 times, and “meat” three times. 1 to eat. 2 to eat (consume) a thing. 2a to take food, eat a meal. 2b metaph. to devour, consume.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

5176 τρώγω [trogo /tro·go/] v. Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of 5134 and 5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear, or perhaps rather of a base of 5167 and 5149 through the idea of a crunching sound; TDNT 8:236; TDNTA 1191; GK 5592; Six occurrences; AV translates as “eat” six times. 1 to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds). 1a of animals feeding. 1b of men. 2 to eat.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Now let us consider Jn chapter 6 where Jesus talks about food everyone of his followers must eat to have eternal life. Here is Jn 6:51-69.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats(phago) of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(phago)?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats(trogo) me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats(trogo) this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

At first Jesus uses the ordinary word for eat, phago, Then in v54 he switches to a stronger word for eat, trogo, and to continue to use it for the rest of the discourse to hammer home that he is speaking literally.

If Jesus was trying to teach something else why would he use language that means to violently assault someone.

In verse 51 Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven and the bread that he would give for the life of the world was his flesh. Now I can understand how some one might not be sure what Jesus meant by this. They would need for him to elaborate. But in v 52 the Jews take him literally to mean they had to eat his actual flesh. I am sure they imagined walking up to Jesus and taking a bite out of his arm and then having to chew it up and swallow it. This is a horrifying and disgusting thought. And besides how many people could he feed? A few hundred and he would be all gone.

In v 53 Jesus does not explain that he is speaking figuratively but doubles down and in the most clear and concise manner says 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Jesus goes on to repeat this teaching by my count 4 times. Then in v 60 and 66 it says many of his disciples fell away over this teaching. Remember Jesus is God and he could read the thoughts of everyone of these disciples. He knew they understood him correctly so there was no need to correct them. What is going on here is that Jesus is testing the faith of his disciples and apostles. Just like God tested Abraham several times and Abraham says to himself “God says it and God does not lie so therefore I believe.” Jesus could have told them how he would do this. He would work a miracle at the Last Supper and change bread into his flesh and wine into his blood. It would still look and taste like bread and wine but would actually be his flesh and blood. They did not have the faith of Abraham. Either they did not believe it was God speaking to them or they did not believe in the truthfulness of God.

Many non-Catholics say that in v 63 Jesus is telling the crowd that he is speaking figuratively. When Jesus uses the word flesh here he is not talking about his actual own flesh but in the sense St Paul does in Rom 8:3 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,. Furthermore no where in scripture is the word spirit used to mean metaphorical or figurative. If this were true he let many disciples walk away and lose their salvation over a misunderstanding. Jesus wants to save everyone and he would not do that. Remember the disciples leave in v 66 which is after v63 where some say Jesus says he is speaking figuratively.

You might ask why Jesus would have us do such a thing. Well at Passover everyone must eat some of the lamb. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. For whatever reason God had the Jews eat the lamb it is probably something similar with the flesh of Jesus.

Finally the whole economy of salvation makes mores sense in the Catholic church. You see your fellow Christian commit sins but you do not judge because you commit similar sins. But when a Christian commits adultery or murder or theft of a large sum of money you question whether they were really saved. This distinction in sins in the Catholic church is called venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not cause you to lose you salvation but mortal sins causes a loss of sanctifying grace which necessary to enter heaven. These mortal sins must be repented of and then confessed to a priest who absolves you from you sin. Remember Jesus breathed on the apostles and told them those whose sins they forgive are forgiven and those who they retain are retained.

For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic.
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,260
113
A uniquely Catholic doctrine is that of the Eucharist. A couple of things need to be established before we get into the text in question Jn 6:51-69. First, recorded in the Gospels in a couple of places Jesus says something figurative and his disciples misunderstand and take him literally. Jesus does not leave them in ignorance but corrects them. The first example occurs in Mt 16:5-12. The disciples have forgotten to bring bread on their journey. Jesus then tells them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, The disciples think he has said this because they forgot to bring bread. Jesus then explains clearly that he is not talking about bread but the teachings of the Pharisees. The next example is Jn 4:31-34. Here again Jesus speaks about food in a figurative way. The disciples encourage Jesus to eat something. Jesus says he has food to eat. The disciples think someone else had brought him food. Jesus then tells them that his food is to do the will of his Father.

Second, the most controversial thing Jesus says in this discourse is that we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. This is biblical metaphorical language. It means to violently assault someone. Here are some examples. Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Micah 3:2-3

Third, is the word “eat”. This passage has numerous occurrences of this word or a form of it. Although it is translated as eat there are two different greek words used. One is phago. This is the ordinary word used for human eating and in this passage the most used. The other greek word is trogo. It means to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables. It is also used for animals feeding. You can see the detailed definitions below from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon

5315 ἐσθίω [phago /fag·o/] v. A primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); GK 2266; 97 occurrences; AV translates as “eat” 94 times, and “meat” three times. 1 to eat. 2 to eat (consume) a thing. 2a to take food, eat a meal. 2b metaph. to devour, consume.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

5176 τρώγω [trogo /tro·go/] v. Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of 5134 and 5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear, or perhaps rather of a base of 5167 and 5149 through the idea of a crunching sound; TDNT 8:236; TDNTA 1191; GK 5592; Six occurrences; AV translates as “eat” six times. 1 to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds). 1a of animals feeding. 1b of men. 2 to eat.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Now let us consider Jn chapter 6 where Jesus talks about food everyone of his followers must eat to have eternal life. Here is Jn 6:51-69.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats(phago) of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(phago)?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats(trogo) me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats(trogo) this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

At first Jesus uses the ordinary word for eat, phago, Then in v54 he switches to a stronger word for eat, trogo, and to continue to use it for the rest of the discourse to hammer home that he is speaking literally.

If Jesus was trying to teach something else why would he use language that means to violently assault someone.

In verse 51 Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven and the bread that he would give for the life of the world was his flesh. Now I can understand how some one might not be sure what Jesus meant by this. They would need for him to elaborate. But in v 52 the Jews take him literally to mean they had to eat his actual flesh. I am sure they imagined walking up to Jesus and taking a bite out of his arm and then having to chew it up and swallow it. This is a horrifying and disgusting thought. And besides how many people could he feed? A few hundred and he would be all gone.

In v 53 Jesus does not explain that he is speaking figuratively but doubles down and in the most clear and concise manner says 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Jesus goes on to repeat this teaching by my count 4 times. Then in v 60 and 66 it says many of his disciples fell away over this teaching. Remember Jesus is God and he could read the thoughts of everyone of these disciples. He knew they understood him correctly so there was no need to correct them. What is going on here is that Jesus is testing the faith of his disciples and apostles. Just like God tested Abraham several times and Abraham says to himself “God says it and God does not lie so therefore I believe.” Jesus could have told them how he would do this. He would work a miracle at the Last Supper and change bread into his flesh and wine into his blood. It would still look and taste like bread and wine but would actually be his flesh and blood. They did not have the faith of Abraham. Either they did not believe it was God speaking to them or they did not believe in the truthfulness of God.

Many non-Catholics say that in v 63 Jesus is telling the crowd that he is speaking figuratively. When Jesus uses the word flesh here he is not talking about his actual own flesh but in the sense St Paul does in Rom 8:3 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,. Furthermore no where in scripture is the word spirit used to mean metaphorical or figurative. If this were true he let many disciples walk away and lose their salvation over a misunderstanding. Jesus wants to save everyone and he would not do that. Remember the disciples leave in v 66 which is after v63 where some say Jesus says he is speaking figuratively.

You might ask why Jesus would have us do such a thing. Well at Passover everyone must eat some of the lamb. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. For whatever reason God had the Jews eat the lamb it is probably something similar with the flesh of Jesus.

Finally the whole economy of salvation makes mores sense in the Catholic church. You see your fellow Christian commit sins but you do not judge because you commit similar sins. But when a Christian commits adultery or murder or theft of a large sum of money you question whether they were really saved. This distinction in sins in the Catholic church is called venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not cause you to lose you salvation but mortal sins causes a loss of sanctifying grace which necessary to enter heaven. These mortal sins must be repented of and then confessed to a priest who absolves you from you sin. Remember Jesus breathed on the apostles and told them those whose sins they forgive are forgiven and those who they retain are retained.

For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic.
"For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic."

Hi Matternich, thank you for this post, I have read it through but need a little more time to respond, and in a polite way of course. I understand mortal and venial sins, but for Adam and Eve's "One sin" the world would be a much different place than we see today....:)

God bless!
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,260
113
A uniquely Catholic doctrine is that of the Eucharist. A couple of things need to be established before we get into the text in question Jn 6:51-69. First, recorded in the Gospels in a couple of places Jesus says something figurative and his disciples misunderstand and take him literally. Jesus does not leave them in ignorance but corrects them. The first example occurs in Mt 16:5-12. The disciples have forgotten to bring bread on their journey. Jesus then tells them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, The disciples think he has said this because they forgot to bring bread. Jesus then explains clearly that he is not talking about bread but the teachings of the Pharisees. The next example is Jn 4:31-34. Here again Jesus speaks about food in a figurative way. The disciples encourage Jesus to eat something. Jesus says he has food to eat. The disciples think someone else had brought him food. Jesus then tells them that his food is to do the will of his Father.

Second, the most controversial thing Jesus says in this discourse is that we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. This is biblical metaphorical language. It means to violently assault someone. Here are some examples. Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Micah 3:2-3

Third, is the word “eat”. This passage has numerous occurrences of this word or a form of it. Although it is translated as eat there are two different greek words used. One is phago. This is the ordinary word used for human eating and in this passage the most used. The other greek word is trogo. It means to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables. It is also used for animals feeding. You can see the detailed definitions below from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon

5315 ἐσθίω [phago /fag·o/] v. A primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); GK 2266; 97 occurrences; AV translates as “eat” 94 times, and “meat” three times. 1 to eat. 2 to eat (consume) a thing. 2a to take food, eat a meal. 2b metaph. to devour, consume.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

5176 τρώγω [trogo /tro·go/] v. Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of 5134 and 5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear, or perhaps rather of a base of 5167 and 5149 through the idea of a crunching sound; TDNT 8:236; TDNTA 1191; GK 5592; Six occurrences; AV translates as “eat” six times. 1 to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds). 1a of animals feeding. 1b of men. 2 to eat.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Now let us consider Jn chapter 6 where Jesus talks about food everyone of his followers must eat to have eternal life. Here is Jn 6:51-69.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats(phago) of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(phago)?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats(trogo) me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats(trogo) this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

At first Jesus uses the ordinary word for eat, phago, Then in v54 he switches to a stronger word for eat, trogo, and to continue to use it for the rest of the discourse to hammer home that he is speaking literally.

If Jesus was trying to teach something else why would he use language that means to violently assault someone.

In verse 51 Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven and the bread that he would give for the life of the world was his flesh. Now I can understand how some one might not be sure what Jesus meant by this. They would need for him to elaborate. But in v 52 the Jews take him literally to mean they had to eat his actual flesh. I am sure they imagined walking up to Jesus and taking a bite out of his arm and then having to chew it up and swallow it. This is a horrifying and disgusting thought. And besides how many people could he feed? A few hundred and he would be all gone.

In v 53 Jesus does not explain that he is speaking figuratively but doubles down and in the most clear and concise manner says 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Jesus goes on to repeat this teaching by my count 4 times. Then in v 60 and 66 it says many of his disciples fell away over this teaching. Remember Jesus is God and he could read the thoughts of everyone of these disciples. He knew they understood him correctly so there was no need to correct them. What is going on here is that Jesus is testing the faith of his disciples and apostles. Just like God tested Abraham several times and Abraham says to himself “God says it and God does not lie so therefore I believe.” Jesus could have told them how he would do this. He would work a miracle at the Last Supper and change bread into his flesh and wine into his blood. It would still look and taste like bread and wine but would actually be his flesh and blood. They did not have the faith of Abraham. Either they did not believe it was God speaking to them or they did not believe in the truthfulness of God.

Many non-Catholics say that in v 63 Jesus is telling the crowd that he is speaking figuratively. When Jesus uses the word flesh here he is not talking about his actual own flesh but in the sense St Paul does in Rom 8:3 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,. Furthermore no where in scripture is the word spirit used to mean metaphorical or figurative. If this were true he let many disciples walk away and lose their salvation over a misunderstanding. Jesus wants to save everyone and he would not do that. Remember the disciples leave in v 66 which is after v63 where some say Jesus says he is speaking figuratively.

You might ask why Jesus would have us do such a thing. Well at Passover everyone must eat some of the lamb. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. For whatever reason God had the Jews eat the lamb it is probably something similar with the flesh of Jesus.

Finally the whole economy of salvation makes mores sense in the Catholic church. You see your fellow Christian commit sins but you do not judge because you commit similar sins. But when a Christian commits adultery or murder or theft of a large sum of money you question whether they were really saved. This distinction in sins in the Catholic church is called venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not cause you to lose you salvation but mortal sins causes a loss of sanctifying grace which necessary to enter heaven. These mortal sins must be repented of and then confessed to a priest who absolves you from you sin. Remember Jesus breathed on the apostles and told them those whose sins they forgive are forgiven and those who they retain are retained.

For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic.
Hi again Matternich, after reading over your work and seeing that you are remaining a devout Catholic I can't see where having a dialog over your Catholicism is going to benefit your or I, so I will need to politely say thank you and move on to something new. We will just have to agree to disagree, God bless.
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
A uniquely Catholic doctrine is that of the Eucharist. A couple of things need to be established before we get into the text in question Jn 6:51-69. First, recorded in the Gospels in a couple of places Jesus says something figurative and his disciples misunderstand and take him literally. Jesus does not leave them in ignorance but corrects them. The first example occurs in Mt 16:5-12. The disciples have forgotten to bring bread on their journey. Jesus then tells them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, The disciples think he has said this because they forgot to bring bread. Jesus then explains clearly that he is not talking about bread but the teachings of the Pharisees. The next example is Jn 4:31-34. Here again Jesus speaks about food in a figurative way. The disciples encourage Jesus to eat something. Jesus says he has food to eat. The disciples think someone else had brought him food. Jesus then tells them that his food is to do the will of his Father.

Second, the most controversial thing Jesus says in this discourse is that we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. This is biblical metaphorical language. It means to violently assault someone. Here are some examples. Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Micah 3:2-3

Third, is the word “eat”. This passage has numerous occurrences of this word or a form of it. Although it is translated as eat there are two different greek words used. One is phago. This is the ordinary word used for human eating and in this passage the most used. The other greek word is trogo. It means to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables. It is also used for animals feeding. You can see the detailed definitions below from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon

5315 ἐσθίω [phago /fag·o/] v. A primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); GK 2266; 97 occurrences; AV translates as “eat” 94 times, and “meat” three times. 1 to eat. 2 to eat (consume) a thing. 2a to take food, eat a meal. 2b metaph. to devour, consume.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

5176 τρώγω [trogo /tro·go/] v. Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of 5134 and 5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear, or perhaps rather of a base of 5167 and 5149 through the idea of a crunching sound; TDNT 8:236; TDNTA 1191; GK 5592; Six occurrences; AV translates as “eat” six times. 1 to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds). 1a of animals feeding. 1b of men. 2 to eat.

Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Now let us consider Jn chapter 6 where Jesus talks about food everyone of his followers must eat to have eternal life. Here is Jn 6:51-69.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats(phago) of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(phago)?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats(trogo) me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats(trogo) this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

At first Jesus uses the ordinary word for eat, phago, Then in v54 he switches to a stronger word for eat, trogo, and to continue to use it for the rest of the discourse to hammer home that he is speaking literally.

If Jesus was trying to teach something else why would he use language that means to violently assault someone.

In verse 51 Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven and the bread that he would give for the life of the world was his flesh. Now I can understand how some one might not be sure what Jesus meant by this. They would need for him to elaborate. But in v 52 the Jews take him literally to mean they had to eat his actual flesh. I am sure they imagined walking up to Jesus and taking a bite out of his arm and then having to chew it up and swallow it. This is a horrifying and disgusting thought. And besides how many people could he feed? A few hundred and he would be all gone.

In v 53 Jesus does not explain that he is speaking figuratively but doubles down and in the most clear and concise manner says 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Jesus goes on to repeat this teaching by my count 4 times. Then in v 60 and 66 it says many of his disciples fell away over this teaching. Remember Jesus is God and he could read the thoughts of everyone of these disciples. He knew they understood him correctly so there was no need to correct them. What is going on here is that Jesus is testing the faith of his disciples and apostles. Just like God tested Abraham several times and Abraham says to himself “God says it and God does not lie so therefore I believe.” Jesus could have told them how he would do this. He would work a miracle at the Last Supper and change bread into his flesh and wine into his blood. It would still look and taste like bread and wine but would actually be his flesh and blood. They did not have the faith of Abraham. Either they did not believe it was God speaking to them or they did not believe in the truthfulness of God.

Many non-Catholics say that in v 63 Jesus is telling the crowd that he is speaking figuratively. When Jesus uses the word flesh here he is not talking about his actual own flesh but in the sense St Paul does in Rom 8:3 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,. Furthermore no where in scripture is the word spirit used to mean metaphorical or figurative. If this were true he let many disciples walk away and lose their salvation over a misunderstanding. Jesus wants to save everyone and he would not do that. Remember the disciples leave in v 66 which is after v63 where some say Jesus says he is speaking figuratively.

You might ask why Jesus would have us do such a thing. Well at Passover everyone must eat some of the lamb. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. For whatever reason God had the Jews eat the lamb it is probably something similar with the flesh of Jesus.

Finally the whole economy of salvation makes mores sense in the Catholic church. You see your fellow Christian commit sins but you do not judge because you commit similar sins. But when a Christian commits adultery or murder or theft of a large sum of money you question whether they were really saved. This distinction in sins in the Catholic church is called venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not cause you to lose you salvation but mortal sins causes a loss of sanctifying grace which necessary to enter heaven. These mortal sins must be repented of and then confessed to a priest who absolves you from you sin. Remember Jesus breathed on the apostles and told them those whose sins they forgive are forgiven and those who they retain are retained.

For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic.
Thank you for your 2 responses. I agree with you on all that you have said.

See this small article on baptism, I think you will like the history of baptism in the Christian church:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-necessity-of-baptism
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
Oh, I thought you left, is why I have not put you on my IGNORE LIST. YOU DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND OUR DOCTRINE. I still think you are ONLY repeating the FALSE IDEA about OSAS that you WERE TAUGHT by a teacher that KNOWS LESS THAN YOU DO. So you KEEP perpetuating the LIE about our Beliefs. You see what I changed to RED in your post? THAT IS A LIE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT ABOUT OUR BELIEFS.

I have told you this over and over again. THAT is NOT what Born Again Christians that BELIEVE in OSAS, actually BELIEVE. So why DO YOU KEEP TELLING THE SAME LIE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. You have this FINAL, ONE Chance only, and then if you return with the same old FALSE TEACHING of our BELIEFS, I will have to put you on my IGNORE LIST.
I was taught that concept back in 1980 in Mesquite Nevada at a small Evangelical Christian church that does no longer exist. The pastor was teaching the problems with the doctrine of OSAS. Back then I don't think it was even called OSAS, but he was talking about being born again and thinking that you are saved the second you believe. He was telling his congregation (I was a visitor) that their young people are not obeying the commandments of God and one reason he brought up was that they thought they were saved, so why do we need to be righteous? It was a problem then and I suspect it has grown into a greater problem today, some almost 40 years into the future.

You go to many churches today and the doctrine of OSAS is being preached as a problem. Pastors are warning people that they must keep the commandments and live a good life in order to be given the gift of EL. Much more the way I think than how you think. The scriptures bear out that yes, we must believe first, but that is only the beginning, and certainly not the end. Sure there are churches that believe what you believe, but they are starting to be less and less. I think the fad for OSAS/ES is starting to wain. I think pastors are starting to preach repentance, and obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the law of Christ.

One day you too will come around, to sound gospel preaching from the bible. I know you will be able to transition from OSAS/ES to the true overall gospel that includes all of the bible, not just a few choice passages that promote an OSAS/ES agenda.
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
Did you read the article I posted in post #67226? It is interesting that the early church and the apostolic fathers all believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Of course, so did Jesus. Even your beloved Martin Luther knew baptism was essential. So read up and be glad that you were baptized.
 

BillG

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2017
8,274
4,004
113
Did you read the article I posted in post #67226? It is interesting that the early church and the apostolic fathers all believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Of course, so did Jesus. Even your beloved Martin Luther knew baptism was essential. So read up and be glad that you were baptized.
In know nothing of Luther or ever read any of his thoughts.
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
You know that you do not have to be Catholic to believe some of their doctrines. I just happen to believe the same way they do in terms of OSAS/ES being a false doctrine.
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
In know nothing of Luther or ever read any of his thoughts.
I am surprized that a born again Christian knows nothing of Martin Luther. He should be your hero. He is my hero is some aspects, but as he tried to reform the Christian church he treaded off the path of the biblical gospel and wound up bringing us only the half of the gospel that he thought was important. Too bad, it has affected us even down to this day.
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,260
113
I am a devout Catholic trying to understand the multitude of beliefs of my Protestant brothers and sisters. The link I referenced gave all the right verses to "support OSAS", but then they said that "many" have false assurance. It seems to me that Bible Christians are no more sure of their salvation than I am. I cannot know what will happen in the future.
Deceptive Poster Metternich.

Metternich sent me this post above and gave me a link to a Catholic website supporting OSAS.
Link: "Could I trouble you to read a tract defending OSAS." http://www.justforcatholics.org/a72.htm

He politely asked me for my testimony which I joyfully complied with and so the conversation about his "search for the truth" continued on and on for about 2 or 3 pages. After this I began to put the brakes when he began to copy and paste wall after wall of Catholic doctrine and teachings.

At the end of his massive postings about Catholic doctrines he ended his post with this comment and I was totally floored like I had been completely deceived.

"For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic."

Metternich led me down a deceptive rabbit trail making me think he was a "devout Catholic, wanting to understand Protestant belief's." And then I was confronted with page after page of Catholic doctrines, a deception.

The Catholic doctrines are full of many many faults, yet, "you remain a devout Catholic."

God will reveal Himself to those who seek Him with honesty and integrity.
 
N

NoNameMcgee

Guest
I am surprized that a born again Christian knows nothing of Martin Luther. He should be your hero. He is my hero is some aspects, but as he tried to reform the Christian church he treaded off the path of the biblical gospel and wound up bringing us only the half of the gospel that he thought was important. Too bad, it has affected us even down to this day.

My hero is Jesus....:oops:
He saved me
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
Remember Jonah, he was headed in the opposite direction that God told him to go. And so it took a great fish that God provided to bring salvation to Jonah. Your mind can create endless, "what if type stories", but these fictitious stories are all in vain.

Our salvation is predestined by God from before time began. There is nothing that will divert the will of God. You cannot "run from God or His plan for your life." also look at the life of the Apostle Paul, or King David, just to give you a few examples.

I just posted these verses a while ago. Focus on our Savior Jesus and forget about dwelling on the "what ifs"
Did King David sin, yes of course he did, but "he was a man after God's own heart, be like King David and forget the fictitious, "what if's.", God bless!

God's Plan of Eternal Salvation;

Romans8:29,30
29)
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
30) And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Are you saying that we were predestined before this earth life to believe in God and to have EL?

Did God know us before this earth life?
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,260
113
You know that you do not have to be Catholic to believe some of their doctrines . I just happen to believe the same way they do in terms of OSAS/ES being a false doctrine.
Quote: "You know that you do not have to be Catholic, 'to believe some of their doctrines"

The Catholic Church s full of non-biblical doctrine's of men. If you want to promote the teachings of the Catholic Church please go to a "Catholic Website"

benhur your Christian beliefs must be Catholic, can you please tell everyone here what Church Denomination are you affiliated with, we would all like to know, is it "Catholicism?"
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,260
113
Are you saying that we were predestined before this earth life to believe in God and to have EL?

Did God know us before this earth life?
Stop hiding benhur and first of all tell us, "What denomination are you affiliated with."

Is it the Catholic Church? Stand up for Jesus!
 

Metternich

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2018
216
10
18
Deceptive Poster Metternich.

Metternich sent me this post above and gave me a link to a Catholic website supporting OSAS.
Link: "Could I trouble you to read a tract defending OSAS." http://www.justforcatholics.org/a72.htm

He politely asked me for my testimony which I joyfully complied with and so the conversation about his "search for the truth" continued on and on for about 2 or 3 pages. After this I began to put the brakes when he began to copy and paste wall after wall of Catholic doctrine and teachings.

At the end of his massive postings about Catholic doctrines he ended his post with this comment and I was totally floored like I had been completely deceived.

"For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic."

Metternich led me down a deceptive rabbit trail making me think he was a "devout Catholic, wanting to understand Protestant belief's." And then I was confronted with page after page of Catholic doctrines, a deception.

The Catholic doctrines are full of many many faults, yet, "you remain a devout Catholic."

God will reveal Himself to those who seek Him with honesty and integrity.
 

benhur

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,534
121
63
Deceptive Poster Metternich.

Metternich sent me this post above and gave me a link to a Catholic website supporting OSAS.
Link: "Could I trouble you to read a tract defending OSAS." http://www.justforcatholics.org/a72.htm

He politely asked me for my testimony which I joyfully complied with and so the conversation about his "search for the truth" continued on and on for about 2 or 3 pages. After this I began to put the brakes when he began to copy and paste wall after wall of Catholic doctrine and teachings.

At the end of his massive postings about Catholic doctrines he ended his post with this comment and I was totally floored like I had been completely deceived.

"For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic."

Metternich led me down a deceptive rabbit trail making me think he was a "devout Catholic, wanting to understand Protestant belief's." And then I was confronted with page after page of Catholic doctrines, a deception.

The Catholic doctrines are full of many many faults, yet, "you remain a devout Catholic."

God will reveal Himself to those who seek Him with honesty and integrity.
He is not a devout Catholic trying to convert to your OSAS based religion. He is trying to understand your OSAS religion. He could see early on that your doctirne was not fully biblical and so just as I did, he tried to get you to move closer to what the entire bible says on the subject of being saved.

You now call him deceptive. He said he was a devout Catholic, and after your words he remained a devout Catholic. No deception. Why have to written to others about what horrible things he did to you, it is all in the record. You just need to be coddled by your friends when someone does not believe 100% like you and you get offended soooo easily. You will just have to live with it, grow an extra layer of skin so you don't get offended soooo easily.