Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

He needn't be talking about the Lords evening meal when he says that. Bear in mind that this discussion is directly on the heels of miracles anyway. You seem to be approaching this from a "He didn't cut flesh off his body, or bleed into a cup, therefore, not body and blood" standpoint, when the Miracle of Transubstantiation is just that, Miraculous.

Its not only that he wasn't "talking" about the Lord's Evening Meal. There is no connection to it, the Lords Evening Meal was set up more than a year afterwards. This particular chapter is simply about putting and exercising faith in Jesus, and doing so by figuratively partaking of his body.

Additionally, cannibalism and the drinking of Blood would directly violate God's Law. Not something Jesus would instruct anyone to do.

*Edit* For the scriptures that state this very clear fact, refer to my earlier post.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

According to a couple sources that I've found, the usual interpretation of the covenant in Ge 9, is that you are not to eat animals that are still alive. This website looks at the covenant fairly closely, and is referenced with sources including a former Jesuit who is director of the Humanities Center at the Claremont Graduate School, near Los Angeles, and such historical accounts as Rabbinic sources like the commentary on the Talmud by Rabbi Raschi.

[AWPerativeIsBack]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Practically religion gives people a reason to hope, however, it can also be used as a reason to lord over others. The previous Pope (John Paul II) stressed love and compassion towards other human beings. Benedict XVI is one of those hardcore fire and brimstone guys who make bold statements in a time where, you know, you can't really make bold statements without something negative happening. He's trying to establish religious intolerance by his statements in a time where we need religious tolerance, because the last thing we need in this world is a war over who has the better imaginary friend.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

When one of the basic tenets of your faith is that the only true path to salvation is through your faith, the idea of religious relativism is incredibly objectionable, in that you're being asked to smile merrily along while you damn people through inaction.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

According to a couple sources that I've found, the usual interpretation of the covenant in Ge 9, is that you are not to eat animals that are still alive. website looks at the covenant fairly closely, and is referenced with sources including a former Jesuit who is director of the Humanities Center at the Claremont Graduate School, near Los Angeles, and such historical accounts as Rabbinic sources like the commentary on the Talmud by Rabbi Raschi.

Acts 15:19,20 Re-Affirms the command to abstain from Blood. Not to "abstain from eating animals while they're still alive".

The idea related here is pretty simple if you ask me.

*edit*

Not to mention, there is a plethora of other scriptures within the old testament that state to abstain from blood without mentioning the life of the animal as in Ge.9

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%209:4;%20Lev%203:17;%207:26;%2017:10,%2014;%2019:26;%20Deut%2012:16,%2023;%2015:23;%201%20Sam%2014:33&version=49

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

If, given the common intepretation of theologions that GE 9 refers to eating animals while still alive

Remember, blood is being used as a metaphor for life. So it is likely that theses verses are in effect saying "don't eat animals that are still alive,"

how is Acts 15:20 saying "but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. " any less likely to mean the same thing?

As the text of the passage is actually written, Acts 15 says "Tell them to avoid blood" which could mean many things. Avoid drinking blood? Avoid contact of the blood of other things on you? Try not to cut yourself shaving?

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

If, given the common intepretation of theologions that GE 9 refers to eating animals while still alive how is Acts 15:20 saying "but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. " any less likely to mean the same thing?

As the text of the passage is actually written, Acts 15 says "Tell them to avoid blood" which could mean many things. Avoid drinking blood? Avoid contact of the blood of other things on you? Try not to cut yourself shaving?

Despite the fluctuating interpretations of theologians, the text remains the same. And clearly says to not eat blood.

You will notice that Acts 15 also says to abstain from strangled animals, the reason for this being, a strangled animal has not been bled and the blood soaks into the meat.

Therefore, a dead animal (thats strangled) with blood in the meat is unacceptable.

Since it is almost the exact same wording between the two testaments I would venture to say that Acts clarifies this idea, Of not "Eating Blood". (That no food is Acceptable with Blood, Dead or Alive)

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Tying this all back into transubstantiation, clearly, interpreting John 6:51-57 as one literally eating and drinking the blood and flesh of Jesus, is Biblically unfounded.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I think we are all missing the point of the story:

Kill your God, eat his flesh, and drink his blood.



It's delicious.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I think we are all missing the point of the story:

Kill your God, eat his flesh, and drink his blood.



It's delicious.

Yes, the doctrine is as ridiculous as it sounds.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Jesus' offering of his body and blood was only a representation of his spirit? Man, those apostles must have been pretty dumb if they couldn't understand that. Even if the Jews were shocked at the idea of cannibalism, they were taking him literally, as did the apostles, and I won't consider that they were worried about the cannibalism aspect.

"This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60)

Believing a figurative interpretation of Jesus' salvation isn't too difficult to comprehend. Taking him literally, however, as the Jews and the apostles did, and hearing that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of your savior, is. Jesus then went back to the apostles and explained his words because they were having difficulty comprehending them.

"How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" (6:52)

That's the Jews talking. That doesn't sound to me like they were worried about getting in trouble for cannibalism; rather, they were thinking what the apostles were thinking. It's a difficult concept to understand how the literal eating of flesh and blood happens.

Even so, the people who followed Jesus around for his entire life and the people who were right in front of him took him literally, so why, these thousands of years later, is he now speaking figuratively? Not even a hundred years after Jesus' death, Ignatius was writing to the Smyrnaeans, "[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh or our Savior Jesus Christ." Forty years after him, Justin was doing the same, then Irenaeaus and Cryil, all before 350 AD. All these were before the Council of Hippo and didn't have the Scripture to go on. As such, their information came from the apostles and their successors.

Why, if the passage was intended to be taken literally, did John not use the classical Greek word for human eating, which is often used metaphorically, but instead use the one that refers to animals' eating? That choice was surely used to emphasize the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Aaaaand, AWPerative won't be rejoining us, not that he said anything worth discussing, anyway.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Jesus' offering of his body and blood was only a representation of his spirit? Man, those apostles must have been pretty dumb if they couldn't understand that. Even if the Jews were shocked at the idea of cannibalism, they were taking him literally, as did the apostles, and I won't consider that they were worried about the cannibalism aspect.

"This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60)

Believing a figurative interpretation of Jesus' salvation isn't too difficult to comprehend. Taking him literally, however, as the Jews and the apostles did, and hearing that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of your savior, is. Jesus then went back to the apostles and explained his words because they were having difficulty comprehending them.

http://andy.mikee385.com

I would say that what someone considers to be easy or hard to grasp is relative.

And clearly by the Jews saying "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" (6:52) they were under the impression that he meant it literally. If it was the first thing that came out of they're mouth, it couldn't of been that hard of an idea to grasp.

Understanding the figurative meaning of gaining salvation through Christ by partaking of his body, is a much more in depth concept if you ask me.

And I'll do some research as to the Greek word used in that instance.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I would say that what someone considers to be easy or hard to grasp is relative.

Even so, the apostles had followed Jesus around learning about salvation through him for years. The previous day they had seen him walk on water and feed thousands with only five loaves of bread and two fish.

Now, when Jesus refers to salvation through his figurative flesh, they suddenly forget everything they've ever heard from him and don't understand this statement?

I don't buy it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Sometimes I wish I weren't so religiously-retarded, so I could partake in theological debates instead of spewing inflammatory garbage. Sorry CT.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Even so, the apostles had followed Jesus around learning about salvation through him for years. The previous day they had seen him walk on water and feed thousands with only five loaves of bread and two fish.

Now, when Jesus refers to salvation through his figurative flesh, they suddenly forget everything they've ever heard from him and don't understand this statement?

I don't buy it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

The concept of salvation in this setting is not necessarily intuitive. In this instance, of course the first thing that comes to mind is its literal application.

And there are several instances in which, (I can look them up if you want) that the Apostles have no idea what Jesus is talking about, and the application is later revealed to them.

Just because they knew about Jesus and the salvation he provided because of previous experience, does not mean that they would instantly make the connection.

However, by examining supporting scriptures, it is made evident that the doctrine in question is not biblically grounded. *edit* I've already listed some reasons in my previous posts.