John 6 and what Jesus was saying to his disciples

And to proof that one is sincere in confessing their sins and live a repented life they must start doing good things to their fellow men "what you do to others you do it unto me" and the first thing is to forgive others that have sin against us or to ask for forgiveness to those that we have offended and sin against to.

Nothing embarrassing about admitting we are sinners and not perfect.

There are certain people that we must be concern or fear and there are those that we can trust and feel no fear. Fear man who are devilish, fear God because we disobeyed Him, God talk to us through the prophets and later He Himself became human as Jesus Christ and later gave instructions to His Apostles to go out to the world and bring all humankind to Him. God was very clear when he said to Peter;

Matthew 16:18-19 "18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".

God talk through the prophets, He send His angels to deliver messages to Lot, Daniel, Mary, Joan etc. and He walk with His Apostles all of them are God's middleman or middle-woman.

Pride and arrogance that leads to tyranny because those individuals look upon themselves as infallible higher than any man and probably higher if not equal to God that is why they listen to no man but to themselves and use God as an excuse for their arrogance and pride.

 

Prospect was talking about ANY verbalization of confession.

As for the verses you cite...please note the part I enlarged for you.

There certainly are some who are puffed up like the Pharisees...doesn't mean they don't have the authority....Even Jesus says to do what they tell you. Seems your "proof text" backfires.

 

By the way...priests do go to confession to other priests. Even the Pope goes to confession to another priest!

 

While it pleases me that you accept the parallels between the Pharisees as described in the bible and at least some Catholic (and Protestant) Clerics, I don’t see how anything ‚backfires‘ here.

The Church is not Jewish, but professes to follow Christ. It’s sad to see how soon Christians started to sport the same human flaws of hubris and vanity and the lust for power as the religious establishment of Jesus’ times. Instead we ought to thrive to emulate the Church in ways that Christ recommends:

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Doesn’t sound to me as if Jesus wanted strict hierarchies amongst His followers or thought that the laity of His church would be unable to get His message without a middle-man.

 

i believe Jesus was talking to people well versed or not so well versed in the Spiritual journey.

By accepting God's message through His son Jesus one is set on the journey.

By Embracing the message one is assured life everlasting.

This you say was spoken in a synagogue or something.

So at the Last Supper He left us a ritual in which He/God imbued it with God.

Sort of the finishing touches to the original teaching...

d


edit: this is supposed to be in response to the original OP

 

1) without the Holy Spirit all of the Gospels of Christ are hard to accept
2)Same as my reason in one and peer pressure
3) you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

The Holy Trinity is Eternal. We are Eternal beings.
Patience and time and the Will of God will bring all but a few burnt seeds back Home.

 

Christ was Jewish. Yes, we are Christian, but we have grown out of a history of the Jewish people. We are also a "covenant of blood" and of "flesh"--Where the Jews sacrificed oxen and goats and lambs, we have the one Sacrifice of Jesus for atonement. Where Jews circumcised their flesh, we circumcise our spirit (as Paul puts it). We most assuredly ARE related to the Jewish Tradition--our Savior was foretold and prophesied in the Jewish Traditions. To deny that connection/communion, is to deny portions of Salvation history!

People have ALWAYS sinned since the beginning. All of that was there even among the 12 that Jesus hand-picked. Do you remember Andrew and James jockeying for position? Thomas doubting? Peter doubting and failing to walk on water, also Peter denying Christ? Paul's hot temper and fighting with Peter? And Judas, for heaven's sake. If you expect the human aspect of the Divine Church to be perfect, you will always be disappointed. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints!

Why did Jesus describe giving Peter "the keys to the Kingdom?" Why did he give the power of "binding and loosing?"

Matt.16
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

No...Jesus established an authoritative, hierarchical Church with Jesus as the Cornerstone.


keys
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9294-key
The expression "to bear the key on his shoulder" denotes possession of office (comp. Isa. xxii. 22). In the time of Ezra, four Levites, the chief porters, were in charge of the key of the Temple (I Chron. ix. 27). The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud: "Three keys are in God's own hand which He never entrusteth to any angel: the key of rain; that of childbirth; and that of the resurrection of the dead.

binding and loosing
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." ....
...In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18 ). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4).


BTW--regarding "call no man father," Read Chapter 1 of Matthew and tell me that is to be literal... It is that none have the same authoritative relationship to us as God--not that you can't call a person father.

 

What is our everything? Our beginning and ending? (alpha/omega) Our 'bread', our breath, our complete submission too, for life, with any lasting?

No image, no other, nothing but absolute embodiment of all that is.

We are its children!



We are light living within the body of god. That light is our every lasting breath within existence.

You see incorrectly!

The tree of life is closer to darwin's rendition knowing that all is ONE with all that is, GOD (the garden itself). ie.. genesis - adam and eve, can be rendered as first life, (cell division)

since consciousness was born, man created the word (names eve) and that use of words (knowledge) for selfish gain, is the rube of evil within 'the garden'. Hence mankind began to believe it was separate from the garden. (left god).

all are forbidden from using knowledge to enable bad (loss to the common)

ie... read the commands.

 

Dear Felicity;
Glad to see that you are strong enough to respond to all the guff you are getting.
Here's some more:

As you mentioned, Christ is the Passover lamb and the unleavened bread that was eaten. He is also the Mana from Heaven that people ate in the desert.

And if you want to consider that some bread and wine turns into His flesh and blood, go ahead. No problem.
But, what He really wants is for the believers to turn into His Flesh and Blood.

In other words, He wants mankind to become like Him. And, that is really what a Christian is; one who follows Christ and becomes One with Him in blood, flesh & mind & Spirit.

I have to add that sexual relations are poetically referred to in the Bible as eating. In the case of the 5 virtuous virgins that Christ married, they had prepared themselves for him, and yes they ate the Manna Bread, Flesh and Blood of His Word. A female becomes a wife (old English for With Man) when she eats her husband and become One with him.
And, Christ is our Husband and Father with whom we are to be One with and perfect as He.

Regarding Rock & Peter:
Does it make sense for Christ to establish the Church of Peter, especially when it is Paul that wrote most of the New Testament, and when Christ is the Rock that Counts?

At any rate, Biblically Christ is always the Rock that we are to build our house on, just as he said to Peter, "upon this rock I will build". Furthermore, we are to become Christ rocks ourselves, like tuned crystals all receiving the same signal from the Fountain of Life and Love that animates the universe.

Both the Vatican and the Orthodox groups claim an "apostolic" chain of authority. But God's authority is not transferred by inheritance, but by any man becoming One with Christ.

Out of Israel's 12 kids, only one was a believer, Joseph. The rest of them were murderers and liars and mostly un-repentant. Take a look at Christian Israel in Europe and America......so much in love with their egos and its lies and war that they have made Christ's name to stink among the nations.

"... I beheld ... a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. Rev. 7:9-10

BTW, The Pope is infallable every time he speaks the Word of Christ.

 

You said "people". Now you're saying his disciples. He said "unto them it is not given... unto you ( His disciples) it IS given to understand. It happens throughout the gospels. John 6, John 3, His first reading in the temple where He shuts the book in the middle of a passage, the parable of the tares, the parable of the sower...

It's all over the place. It's like a recurring theme. Try reading without those Catholic apologetics goggles.

 

The Gospel from before Abraham to now has never been "Jewish". Judah was only one tribe out of 12, and Judah was a criminal who did not repent even in Egypt.

A real Jew is one who follows Christ. (Rom. 2:28-29) All the rest of those who claim to be Jewish are of the Sinogog of God's & Mankind's enemies. Rev. 2:9, 3:9

On top of all that, Abraham, Issaac & Israel and all their wives and mothers were Syrian. Deut. 26:5
"And Laban (The Syrian) answered and said unto Jacob, These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children, and these cattle are my cattle, and all that thou seest is mine"
"therefore come thou, let us make a covenant"
that "I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm."
Gen. 31:43-55

 

Anything can be rendered as anything, Bishadi. It doesn't make it right, or any less wrong, because you can make up a quaint parallel.

 

You have a problem with calling it a parable. Fine. Let's apply that same strict scrutiny to the word "literal". There is no account in the bible, or anywhere else, of anyone ever eating the literal flesh of Jesus of Nazareth. Some people saw his flesh some people touched it, but no one ever took a bite, except for, perhaps, a few Sanhedrin members at His trial.

He also doesn't give an elaborate explanation of Mathew 9:43-48
In fact, all the reasons you're trying to use to say that John 6 is literal apply to that passage in Mathew 9
So, if any part of your body has offended you, and you still have it, you will go to hell. But that's not the way it works, is it?

If John six was meant literally, then everyone is lost, other than a couple of guys who bit Him during His literal, physical persecution. If it is meant literally, then Jesus lied to the guy on the other cross, and he lied to all of us in John three.

 

Thanks--and although I don't think he was literally the manna and the Passover lamb in the OT, but rather those are prefigurements of the Eucharist, I do agree the ultimate thing God wants of us is to become like Him. Hey! You are what you eat takes on a whole 'nother meaning in that context, eh?!

Yes--there is an element of that as well. Paul explains it somewhat in Ephesians 5. Eating is indeed an intimate act that nourishes. Such is the appropriate nature of the marital embrace.

...and Brother! Yes--it is about relationship.

Yes. Peter had an irrepressible faith. Jesus gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing. Peter was the guy who navigated the 1st conflict in the Church over whether people must convert to Judaism to be followers of The Way. The Church still exists today. Apparently, jesus knew what He was doing. Paul was probably too passionate to shepherd wisely. He was good at pissing people off. Peter was kind of a pleasant oaf type of guy who led with his heart. People need people. God knows that, and He provides.

I agree Christ is the foundation and cornerstone of our Christian Faith. However, Peter is the foundation of the visible Church--Jesus said so.

Where do you get that information? It's just an assertion of yours. I offered contextual evidence of Jewish symbology that supports Jesus intentionally gave authority to Peter and the Church. If you look, you will see that the authority I referenced IS transferrable. That is what "the Chair of Moses" is all about--the succession of authoritative leadership. Jesus mentioned that too!

 

I assumed you had been following the conversation. The text of John 6 says these disciples walked with Jesus no more. If you're going to get catty (saying things like "Catholic apologetics goggles"), at least have the decency to follow the conversation so you don't look silly.

 

PHP:

Why did Jesus describe giving Peter "the keys to the Kingdom?" Why did he give the power of "binding and loosing?"

Matt.16
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The "keys" to this "Kingdom of Heaven" are the binding (affirmations) and denials (loosening).

The "Earth" represents the fixed, or concrete, state of consciousness resting in this rock substance of faith.
Thus our rock of Faith is our foundation and why we should guard, train and reinforce our faith, for it can free us or limit us by our words & actions. From Metaphysical Bible Dictionary by Charles Fillmore; section on Peter.
Merry Christmas

 

Well...that's an interesting take, but it doesn't have the historicity that the Jewish idioms have...I mean, after all, Jesus was a Jew and so were all his Apostles. I think they'd all know what was meant and not ascribe some other meaning to it than the religious one they knew. In the beginning, Christianity WAS a Jewish sect!

I really don't know from whence Mr. Filmore derives his conclusion.

And to you also. Blessed New Year!

 

i didnt make up the adam and eve parable.

I shared that it can be true, with understanding.

Just like the 'eat of my body' claims. It dont mean, eat crackers and drink wine, it means, when you comprehend that everything of all your needs, eating, breath and life is of god (nature itself),

kind of like, the prophecy of the messiah being of a virgin, when it is more like, when the days that women can be virgin and have children, the truth will be upon the earth

ie.... today is test tube baby day, not that some 'god' spoke to a virgin and said, 'hey, you're gonna have a god as a child.

It is the fools, like you, ranting up and down on magic and miracles when in fact getting slapped around by truth, as each parable can be defined, just as the old prophecies said.

 

he knew he wasnt 'king' or the christ, so he took a walk about on the hill.


He did it all the time when people began claiming he was christ. it is why in matt 16:20 he made it clear.

Read john 14 and it will assist with john 6

 

Catty? That's what I meant. You are reading a boatload of extra information into the text. And that extra information comes from nothing other than Catholic doctrine. When you go to defend the doctrine against critics like me, you are engaging in apologetics. Many of them (the apologetics lines), however are only coherent from within Catholicism. This is where you are. You see everything from the Catholic perspective and through the Catholic paradigm. Those are your Catholic apologetics goggles. There's no sense in denying your presuppositions.

The fact is, I have acknowledged the distinction between the way Christ talked to his disciples and everyone else from the beginning of this, but the test you want to impose "would Jesus let people go over a misunderstanding?" is your own. It's not in the text. It's an arbitrary standard that you apply TO the text.

You said, at the outset, that you wanted to exegete this passage, but you haven't done that. What you are doing is called eisegesis.

 

Spare me. Are you telling me that you are beyond all embarrassment ? Don't confuse embarrassment with humility. It's easy to confess to a man that I am a sinner but the specifics are none of his business really. Jesus never told me to confess my sins to "our father who art in the booth."

No, actually that is more like it,more convenient. I vent to my friends all the time, it's wonderful. They too, offer unconditional forgiveness and without all the prayer bead stuff.

 

I didn't say "parable," I said "quaint parallel." It's a parallel of disparate ideas. It's like saying pumpkins and heads are round so they both contain brains.

"There's a sucker born every minute."
Yup. It's a freak-show alright!

 

So ? They should confess their sins to other Christian brothers and sisters, like me and junobet . lol

Now that would be humility,eh ?

..

 

Okay...I'll play along... according to your exegesis of the text--using your best objective critical literary lens, why did the disciples leave Jesus in John 6? Support your position with specific evidence as I have, please.

 

Do you think being a priest these days doesn't exact a high humility price? Margot already pulled the pedophile card...