Catholicism 101

K

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
You still didn't answer the question. Was Jesus human? It's a simple question.
 
phipps

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,904
Kung Fu said:
Was he human? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
When Jesus was on earth, He was fully human. He was born in the same flesh and nature as us and took on the same hereditary weaknesses as all mankind. Paul wrote in Romans 1:3, "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." Why was He born in the same flesh and nature as us? Again Paul wrote in Hebrews 2:17, "Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Jesus understood our weaknesses and inclinations toward sin, and that makes Him a merciful High Priest for us in heaven. "In all things" really means "in all things".

But unlike all mankind, Jesus did not sin despite inheriting our weaknesses and nature. Although tempted in all points like we are, He did not give in to temptation. He relied completely on His Father (John 8:28) and demonstrated to us that we too can have victory over sin in our human nature. Hebrews 2:14, "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." Christ took part of the same nature as the children who "have partaken of flesh and blood." Adam had children after he sinned. So all the children who have ever been born in the world have inherited the same fallen nature of Adam, because they were all born after he sinned. If Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood as the children, it had to be sinful flesh and blood but, He was sinless.

Jesus was also fully God though. He can't stop being God. He is and always will be but when He was on earth, He did not exercise His divine power to save Himself once from the weaknesses and nature that He inherited from His human ancestry. He chose to live His life here as a man in the same way we have to live it. His not sinning was because He depended constantly and solely on the power of His Father. That is how He overcame the devil and lived a life of perfect obedience. That is why He is our example.
 
floss

floss

Star
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
2,255
phipps said:
When Jesus was on earth, He was fully human. He was born in the same flesh and nature as us and took on the same hereditary weaknesses as all mankind. Paul wrote in Romans 1:3, "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." Why was He born in the same flesh and nature as us? Again Paul wrote in Hebrews 2:17, "Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Jesus understood our weaknesses and inclinations toward sin, and that makes Him a merciful High Priest for us in heaven. "In all things" really means "in all things".

But unlike all mankind, Jesus did not sin despite inheriting our weaknesses and nature. Although tempted in all points like we are, He did not give in to temptation. He relied completely on His Father (John 8:28) and demonstrated to us that we too can have victory over sin in our human nature. Hebrews 2:14, "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." Christ took part of the same nature as the children who "have partaken of flesh and blood." Adam had children after he sinned. So all the children who have ever been born in the world have inherited the same fallen nature of Adam, because they were all born after he sinned. If Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood as the children, it had to be sinful flesh and blood but, He was sinless.

Jesus was also fully God though. He can't stop being God. He is and always will be but when He was on earth, He did not exercise His divine power to save Himself once from the weaknesses and nature that He inherited from His human ancestry. He chose to live His life here as a man in the same way we have to live it. His not sinning was because He depended constantly and solely on the power of His Father. That is how He overcame the devil and lived a life of perfect obedience. That is why He is our example.
Click to expand...
He's looking for a yes or no answer, not the Truth.
 
Toulouse

Toulouse

Established
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
259
Lisa said:
He didn’t mean it in the way that catholics take it so, no it’s not good enough. If Jesus really meant to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual flesh...don’t ya think that His disciples would have chopped Him up right there and then? But they didn’t...He didn’t mean it in a literal sense. And..since He is also the once for all sacrifice for sin, if you believe on Him..what is the point of eating His actual flesh and drinking His actual blood? The whole point is that He is life for us and we should remember that when we eat and drink because that is what sustains our bodies..He is what sustains our souls.
Click to expand...
So why is it okay for Lisa, or Joe Blow Fundamentalist, to know what Jesus thought, but not the people who were closest to him, or not for the people who are considered to have the greatest minds in all of Christianity? Your doctrines are coming in against you.
 
floss

floss

Star
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
2,255
Toulouse said:
Take it up with Jesus. He said it! Apparently, that's not good enough. How ironic. The fallacy of sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
Let me understand this correctly, during communion you walk up to grab the cracker and drink the juice. The moment you chew and swallow the cracker, in your mind you imagine it to be the physical flesh of Christ? And when you drink the juice, you imagine it to be the real blood of Christ?

If true, this is satanic!
 
Infinityloop

Infinityloop

Star
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
floss said:
Let me understand this correctly, during communion you walk up to grab the cracker and drink the juice. The moment you chew and swallow the cracker, in your mind you imagine it to be the physical flesh of Christ? And when you drink the juice, you imagine it to be the real blood of Christ?

If true, this is satanic!
Click to expand...
ROTFL, John 6:51-58 must be satanic too :rolleyes:
 
Infinityloop

Infinityloop

Star
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
floss said:
It's so obvious that it was a metaphor. Did any of the Disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Click to expand...
Actually, read John 6:66
"As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore."

After Jesus continues to explain the theology of this ritual, it disturbs a lot of people, many people including disciples (as explicitly stated above) left him. Clearly if he was only speaking in metaphor he would not get that reaction.

The issue is that you limit "metaphor" only to the statements that are hard for you to digest. You as a Protestant choose metaphor at your convenience, you are rewriting the Bible by doing so.

Your interpretation disagrees with the rest of Christian history.


edit;

As for "Did any of the Disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood?". Anyone who has read the Bible knows that the Bible is not very descriptive and leaves much to the imagination. It doesn't speak much of what else happened that day or month with those specific people, it goes onto another scene in a different place in a matter of verses.
All that we know is that what Jesus said offended a lot of people because it is, frankly, a very graphic thing to say.
 
Last edited:
floss

floss

Star
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
2,255
Infinityloop said:
Actually, read John 6:66
"As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore."

After Jesus continues to explain the theology of this ritual, it disturbs a lot of people, many people including disciples (as explicitly stated above) left him. Clearly if he was only speaking in metaphor he would not get that reaction.

The issue is that you limit "metaphor" only to the statements that are hard for you to digest. You as a Protestant choose metaphor at your convenience, you are rewriting the Bible by doing so.

Your interpretation disagrees with the rest of Christian history.


edit;

As for "Did any of the Disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood?". Anyone who has read the Bible knows that the Bible is not very descriptive and leaves much to the imagination. It doesn't speak much of what else happened that day or month with those specific people, it goes onto another scene in a different place in a matter of verses.
Click to expand...
“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscar´i-ot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:60-71‬ ‭KJVA‬‬
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top