The Bread of Life Discourse

Introduction

The Bread of Life Discourse is the Apostle John’s account of the conversation between Jesus and the Jews as recorded in chapter six of his gospel.  In His discourse with the Jews, Jesus plainly conveys what they must do to be saved; believe in Him.  However, the Jews were more interested in the miracles Jesus performed then they were in what He preached.  They were convinced that if He was the messiah, He would lead them to victory over the Romans and establish the everlasting kingdom. 

Jesus exclaimed no less than seven times during this discourse what was required of a person to be saved; believe in Him.  Every instance echoes Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” [i]  The message of the Bread of life discourse is no different except that it gives perspective to those words.  The Jews knew only the Law, but Jesus was conveying something the Law could not; grace.  And by contrast, the Law, which is true and righteous, could only condemn, but Christ, who is truth and righteousness, was the fulfillment of the Law; the true Bread from heaven that gives life everlasting.

The discourse was about grace, fulfillment of the Law and prophets, and the purpose of Messiah.  The discourse was not about physically eating the Lord’s flesh and drinking His blood.  The discourse does not provide proof for, or in any way support, the Catholic doctrine of real presence.  It is, however, an invitation to discover the Good News; the Gospel of Christ as summed up in John 3:16.

The Bread of Life

John chapter six is where the rubber meets the road for the disciples of Jesus as they listen to the discourse between Him and the Jews.  Many of the Jews were watching Jesus, trying to discern if He truly was the Messiah.  When they saw the miracle of the multiplying of the loaves, they desired to take Him by force and make Him king with the goal of reclaiming Jerusalem.  This is what they thought the messiah was going to do.  Jesus, perceiving their intentions, escaped out of their presence.

The following day the Jews discovered Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum and asked Him how He came to be there.  Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”[ii]  Jesus exposed their motives for seeking Him.  The Jews sought Jesus for their own ambitious agenda, but Jesus challenged them by confronting their lack of faith. He said this not only for them to hear, but also for those disciples who were following Him for the same earthly reasons.

Jesus tells the Jews, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”[iii]  This they couldn’t understand; they were too carnal minded.  Jesus was telling them by parable to labor for spiritual food, which is the work of God, not carnal food, which is the work of man. 

During the time Satan tempted Jesus with bread because He was hungry, Jesus replied, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”[iv]  Because Jesus said labor for that meat which endures unto everlasting life; it prompted them to challenge Jesus with this question: “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?[v] 

It is not clear from the context of the discourse whether or not the Jews were sincere or if they were testing Him like the Pharisees did in Mathew 22.  But one thing is clear, in the minds of the Jews there was only one correct answer.  If Jesus did not assert the Law as the work of God, they would condemn Him as a fraud.  If, on the other hand, He affirmed the Law, they might have attempted once more to take Him and declare Him king.

The question was posed and Jesus answered it, but not exactly as they were expecting.  “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”[vi]   The Jews suspected Jesus might be the Messiah, but they were no doubt stunned at His response claiming to be exactly that.  No one knows how many people were actually at the synagogue, but one can imagine the collective gasp as both followers and skeptics processed those words. 

Now they sought to test Him, to make Him prove He was sent from God.  They said, “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work?[vii] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”[viii]”  Jesus replied, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.[ix]

Certain Pharisees also asked Jesus for a sign and Jesus replied to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”[x]

The answer Jesus gave the Jews in this discourse is no different than the answer He gave the Pharisees in Mathew’s gospel.  Even His closest disciples wouldn’t understand Jesus’ purpose until they see the sign He was referring to; the empty tomb.  He gave life unto the world by giving His life for the world.  This is what He is telling them but it is not possible for them to conceive it. 

It’s obvious they didn’t understand what Jesus was telling them because by there response; “Lord, evermore give us this bread.”[xi]  Jesus repeated what He said before, but more specifically by saying, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”[xii] 

John records another discourse similar to this one with a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well.  In that discourse Jesus told the woman, “Whosoever drinketh of this water (from the well) shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.[xiii]  In both discourses Jesus illustrates the difference between our physical needs and the spiritual rewards of one who is born of the Spirit. 

The Bread of life discourse, the discourse with the woman at the well, and the discourse with Nicodemus are all recorded in John’s Gospel, and all three have the same common thread; salvation is obtained by believing in Christ.

Jesus continued with the Jews, “But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and believe not.[xiv]  This is key to understanding the position that the Jews held and also the hopeless state they were in.  When Thomas, one of the twelve, saw the resurrected Christ, he fell to his knees and said, “My Lord and my God.”[xv]  Jesus replied, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”[xvi]  There were those disciples who were with Jesus because they believed in Him, and there were, and are, many people who have not seen Him and yet believe. 

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”[xvii]  This is the first of two consecutive times Jesus said “the will of the Father.”  In this instance, Jesus is referring to the twelve.  Compare this to Jesus’ words when He prayed to the Father, prior to His arrest at Gethsemane.  “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.[xviii]  Jesus confirmed in that prayer that His disciples were given to Him by His Father.  This is further collaborated in Mathew 16:17: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

As the discourse continued the twelve are there with Jesus along with the Jews to whom He is conversing.  The other disciples who believe in Him are not left out as Jesus continues discussing the will of the Father: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”[xix]  This is the fifth time in this discourse that Jesus conveyed the plain truth about salvation.  This is the common thread throughout John’s Gospel.  Jesus said nothing different here than what He said to Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”[xx]  This is the simple gospel message in a nutshell. 

The Jews have no concept of Jesus being the Son of God; they only know Him as the son of Joseph and Mary.  They knew Jesus was referring to Himself, and because Jesus said, “every one which seeth the Son” they murmured at Him and said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?[xxi]

In response to this, Jesus proclaimed his divinity: “It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.  Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.[xxii]  

One such prophet was Isaiah who prophesied, “All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children.”[xxiii]  And Jeremiah prophesied the following: “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”[xxiv]

Jesus paints a clear picture of who He is in His response to the Jews.  Not only does He claim to be Messiah, He claims to have come from the presence of God.  But to the Jews He could not have been Messiah.  The message that fell upon the ears of the Jews was essentially one of rebellion.  Where was the Law; where was the sin offering, the priesthood, the scribes and Pharisees; where was all that in Jesus’ proclamation?  Didn’t God institute the Law?  What did Jesus mean by He that believeth on me hath everlasting life

This is not hard to understand from a Christian perspective, but try to understand it from a Jewish perspective.  It makes absolutely no sense at all.  That is why Jesus said, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.  Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.”  Nobody can learn of the Father except through Jesus, and, as Jesus said earlier in the discourse, nobody can come to Him unless the Father draw him or her in. 

Jesus plainly told the Jews what they needed for eternal life no less than seven times, but they didn’t listen nor were they able to understand because of their unbelief.  Now He will tell them again but this time in a way that the will repulse and confuse the carnal mind and will cause many to leave in disgust and disappointment.

Jesus tells them He is the bread of life and goes on to say: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.[xxv]  The Jews were thrown into frenzy over this saying.  “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?[xxvi]  They didn’t understand what He was saying.  Jesus was saying He would give His life, according to the flesh, at the cross so that the world might be saved, as many as who will believe.  “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.[xxvii] 

Just as their fathers ate manna, which was given to them by God, for the sake of their physical lives, Jesus gave His flesh at the cross for our eternal lives.  Remember, their fathers complained and hated the manna God gave them, foreshadowing their rejection of Christ.[xxviii]  Jesus was the only One who ever lived a sinless life.  He was born sinless because he was begotten of the Father and obeyed the Law perfectly.  Therefore, only He could be the perfect sacrifice in the flesh for our sins — the Lamb without blemish or spot.  Because the Jews did not believe in Him and because Jesus said He was the bread from heaven and He would give His flesh for the life of the world, they thought He was telling them to eat His flesh.  This testifies to what Jesus told them before that they were seeking Him because they ate of the loaves and were filled.  They had no spiritual discernment and could only understand Him carnally.  Therefore, Jesus is now going to speak according to the Spirit, and whosoever hears these sayings by canal means will be offended because of their unbelief.  

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[xxix]  Compare this with what He said in verse 40: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  The message never changed, only the way Jesus presented it.  He did this so that those who didn’t believe in the truth might stumble by the truth.  “Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.[xxx] 

Jesus continued, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.[xxxi]  John, the author of this gospel, explained this saying in his first epistle when he said, “And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.  And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.[xxxii]  Hasn’t Jesus been saying this throughout the discourse, “Come unto Me, and believe in Me and I will raise you up at the last day?  Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.[xxxiii]  He then promises to give us the Holy Spirit so that He can abide in us.  And by that Spirit we know He abides in us and we in Him. 

After saying these things, many of His disciples complained to each other because they could not understand.  Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said to them: “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before (referring to the resurrection)?[xxxiv]  They saw Him perform many miracles, yet failed to see Him for who He is.  The Father did not reveal Him to them because they did not believe.  Jesus told Nicodemus: “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (at the cross): That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”[xxxv]   Only those who are born of the Spirit can comprehend the things of the Spirit.  Likewise, only those to whom God has revealed His Son can come to Him. 

Jesus then says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.[xxxvi]  Jesus is saying that the body without the spirit is nothing.  This teaching is spiritual, not physical.  His flesh is spiritual food and His blood is spiritual drink, which profits the spirit greatly, and profits not the body at all.  Paul best explained this when he said, “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.[xxxvii]  If Christ is in you, it’s because you love Him and keep His commandments, and thus are born of the Spirit – “it is the spirit that quickens” – not because you ate His body – your flesh profits nothing from these words.  If we say we feed the spirit by the physical act of eating something, we are fooling ourselves.

As we read on, we see that the unbelieving disciples left Him, and He turned to the twelve and asked if they will also go away.  But Peter answered Him saying, “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.[xxxviii] 

Amen!


[i] John 3:16[ii] John 6:26[iii] John 6:27[iv] Mat 4:4

[v] John 6:28

[vi] John 6:29

[vii] John 6:30

[viii] John 6:31

[ix] John 6:32-33

[x] Mat. 12:39-40, See also Mat. 16:1-4

[xi] John 6:34

[xii] John 6:35

[xiii] John 4:13-14

[xiv] John 6:36

[xv] John 20:28

[xvi] John 20:29

[xvii] John 6:37-38

[xviii] John 17:12

[xix] John 6:40

[xx] John 3:16

[xxi] John 6:42

[xxii] John 6:45-47

[xxiii] Isa. 54:13

[xxiv] Jer. 31:34

[xxv] John 6:51

[xxvi] John 6:52

[xxvii] Mat. 20:28

[xxviii] Num. 21:5

[xxix] John 6:53-55

[xxx] 1Pet. 2:7-8

[xxxi] John 6:56

[xxxii] 1John 3:23-24

[xxxiii] John 14:15

[xxxiv] John 6:61-62

[xxxv] John 3:12-15

[xxxvi] John 6:63

[xxxvii] Rom. 8:10

[xxxviii] John 6:68-69

Advertisements

289 Responses to The Bread of Life Discourse

  1. Ebouty says:

    By the way, and this is my last post for today, please respond to my previous posts concerning Matthew 16 on the comments of the Church Fathers. You must explain to me what those Fathers mean.

    This I believe was the right place for you to argue your point for from that misinterpretation of Matthew 16 by your Church thus comes full of crap doctrines and dogmas.

    I like you to explain to me what Ambrose, Eusebius and Cyprian mean in their comments that I gave you for I have no desire for tomorrow to continue on this post “bread of life discourse, because what we been through here is out of topic.

    See you and God bless you

    Bye for now.

    Like

  2. Chazmo says:

    You asked: “…name one from your Christian history please. You must have someone from in your faith History that you can model your actions after…”

    There are so many that I can tell you and you know what those guys model their action from no one, but the scripture. We don’t call them Saints, because we are incapable to know what belongs to God. We are different from Paul and the other Apostles who can call others Saints, because they are the foundations of the Church and Christ is the Chief cornerstone.

    Francis Bribard, secretary to cardinal de Pellay, for speaking in favor of the reformed, had his tongue cut out, and was then burnt, A.D. 1545.

    James Cobard, a schoolmaster in the city of St. Michael, was burnt, A.D. 1545, for saying ‘That Mass was useless and absurd’; (I’m afraid because I said the Mass is full of crap and shit. The Catholics will find me and burnt me at the stake because that is the Will of the Spirit of Christ).

    In A.D. 1546, Peter Chapot brought a number of Bibles in the French tongue to France, and publicly sold them there; for which he was brought to trial, sentenced, and executed a few days afterward. Soon after, a cripple of Meaux, a schoolmaster of Fera, named Stephen Poliot, and a man named John English, were burnt for the faith.

    Monsieur Blondel, a rich jeweler, was, in A.D. 1548, apprehended at Lyons, and sent to Paris; there he was burnt for the faith by order of the court, A.D. 1549. (What court? Political-ecclesiastical court)

    Herbert, a youth of nineteen years of age, was committed to the flames at Dijon; as was also Florent Venote in the same year. (What? 19 years of age?)

    John Calas who suffered the torture with great constancy, and was led to execution in a frame of mind which excited the admiration of all that saw him, and particularly of the two Dominicans (Father Bourges and Father Coldagues) who attended him in his last moments, and declared that they thought him not only innocent of the crime laid to his charge, but also an exemplary instance of true Christian patience, fortitude, and charity. The popular outcry against this family was so violent in Languedoc, that every body expected to see the children of Calas broke upon the wheel, and the mother burnt alive.

    Dr. Constance who had many opportunities of rising in the Church, but never would take advantage of them; for if a living of greater value than his own was offered him, he would refuse it, saying, “I am content with what I have”; and he frequently preached so forcibly against simony, that many of his superiors, who were not so delicate upon the subject, took umbrage at his doctrines upon that head.

    Having been fully confirmed in Protestantism by Dr. Aegidio, he preached boldly such doctrines only as were agreeable to Gospel purity, and uncontaminated by the errors which had at various times crept into the Romish Church. For these reasons he had many enemies among the Roman Catholics, and some of them were fully determined on his destruction.

    The inquisitors being thus possessed of Constantine’s books and writings, now found matter sufficient to form charges against him. When he was brought to a re-examination, they presented one of his papers, and asked him if he knew the handwriting? Perceiving it was his own, he guessed the whole matter, confessed the writing, and justified the doctrine it contained: saying, “In that, and all my other writings, I have never departed from the truth of the Gospel, but have always kept in view the pure precepts of Christ, as He delivered them to mankind.”

    After being detained upwards of two years in prison, Dr. Constantine was seized with a bloody flux, which put an end to his miseries in this world. The process, however, was carried on against his body, which, at the ensuing auto da fe, was publicly burnt.

    William Gardiner-the erroneous worship which he had seen ran strongly in his mind; he was miserable to see a whole country sunk into such idolatry, when the truth of the Gospel might be so easily obtained. He, therefore, took the inconsiderate, though laudable design, into his head, of making a reform in Portugal, or perishing in the attempt; and determined to sacrifice his prudence to his zeal, though he became a martyr upon the occasion.

    The king and the court soon appeared, and a cardinal began Mass, at that part of the ceremony in which the people adore the wafer. Gardiner could hold out no longer, but springing towards the cardinal, he snatched the host from him, and trampled it under his feet. This action amazed the whole congregation, and one person, drawing a dagger, wounded Gardiner in the shoulder, and would, by repeating the blow, have finished him, had not the king called to him to desist. Gardiner, being carried before the king, the monarch asked him what countryman he was: to which he replied, “I am an Englishman by birth, a Protestant by religion, and a merchant by occupation. What I have done is not out of contempt to your royal person, God forbid it should, but out of an honest indignation, to see the ridiculous superstitious and gross idolatries practiced here.”

    Gardiner was sent to prison, and a general order issued to apprehend all Englishmen in Lisbon. This order was in a great measure put into execution, (some few escaping) and many innocent persons were tortured to make them confess if they knew anything of the matter; in particular, a person who resided in the same house with Gardiner was treated with unparalleled barbarity to make him confess something which might throw a light upon the affair.

    Gardiner himself was then tormented in the most excruciating manner; but in the midst of all his torments he gloried in the deed. Being ordered for death, a large fire was kindled near a gibbet, Gardiner was drawn up to the gibbet by pulleys, and then let down near the fire, but not so close as to touch it; for they burnt or rather roasted him by slow degrees. Yet he bore his sufferings patiently and resigned his soul to the Lord cheerfully.

    Those are the people whose HEROIC LIVES CHANGED THE WORLD TRULY (for the better), because they were the first to be persecuted by the Church of Rome like early Christians who were being persecuted by the Roman Emperor. And are the ones to encourage other believers to win over the Church of Rome’s evil act. Thus century later, the practice of the Roman Catholic Church in burning heretics ceased. And why was that? It is because of those people. That is the real changing of the World for the better.

    NOTHING HERE BEFORE 1500’s FIND SOME BEFORE THE 1500’s….

    **********So what is wrong with artificial contraception? Is not good for family planning? What happen if you have 20 children of your own that you get from your lustful desire without thinking and you cannot support them?********

    *******Now for an abortion, what is wrong if you did that rather than the one being alive and put to the flame?******

    Here my friend Ebouty you have disqualified yourself from any credibility. There is no point debating you any more your true SATANIC MIND is now in THE BRIGHT LIGHT AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.

    Abortion has from day 1 of christianity been condemned there is no moral reason to have an abortion unless you believe ” ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED” where no matter what you do you can not lose your salvation (HERESY AT ITS GREATEST).

    Artificial contraception (hormonal and IUD) forms of birth control KILL BABIES….hormonal birth control at around 10 percent cause a fertilized egg to be unable to implant on the uteris causing a”created human–with a soul” to be killed. This happens without the mother even knowing she has killed her own child….TELL ME IF THAT IS NOT THE WORK OF SATAN…..This makes hormonal birth control the absolute greatest by many billions killers of innocents….greater than the holocost and other evil acts.

    Brian do you belive as Ebouty?

    THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY REMAINING CHURCH TO CALL CONTRACEPTION AN INTRINSIC MORAL EVIL….

    EBOUTY CHECKMATE YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED AND YOUR SOUL IS IN GRAVE PERIL…Repent now while you can!

    Like

  3. Chazmo says:

    Until 1930 there were no chrisitan denominations that believed contraception was moral, then one church decided that in certain grave circumstances it could be moral, then the floodgates opened….now we have contraception the greatest killer of innocents in the history of the world….

    Now my friends this is how satan works we now have only 1 shining light left concerning this grave evil and its ths CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    THE HOLY SPIRIT has preserved the Catholic Church from this grave evil just like He has preserved ALL TRUTH in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

    Like

  4. Ebouty says:

    This is so stupid of you. You said

    *****Here my friend Ebouty you have disqualified yourself from any credibility. There is no point debating you any more your true SATANIC MIND is now in THE BRIGHT LIGHT AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.****

    You are absolutely 100% right, there is no point in debating me if you cannot explain to me what I gave you. Your FOOL SHIT SATANIC MIND is now in THE BRIGHT LIGHT AGAINST CHRISTIANITY by not showing the truth to others. You keep on insisting that your Church interpretation on Matthew 16:18 is right, but when I gave you just only three of the Fathers it looks like someone twisting your head to your back while your body still as it is. But that is not just those fathers there are many more, but I think that’s looks enough for your silence.
    By the way did I say God’s allow the use of artificial contraception? Ahahahaha….You are like a rubbish bin where all food waste etc from the Vatican kept for disposing. I do not say it was allowed. What I said is “So what is wrong with artificial contraception? Is not good for family planning?”

    You need to read these two sites, because you are a Romanist, but YOU don’t know anything of your Church:

    http://churchandstate.org.uk/wordpressRM/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Infallibility-and-the-Population-Problem.pdf

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×3503158

    Looks like I don’t want to reply to the rest of your post. They are going to waste my time on other good stuff.

    Finally, Chazmo, come closer, I will whisper into your ears otherwise others will hear me and you will be embarrased. Ready? Why don’t you want to respond to my comments that I asked you to? Don’t be ashame and aftraid. No one can come straight to you and kick your HEAD if you tell the truth.

    I need your explanation, but instead you go on to stuff that I don’t really interested in. If you want to explain that to me go ahead and no more diverting to other topics or fool shit stuff of your Church right? Your brothers who were trap like you need your help to be release from Satan’s kingdom, so it’s all up to you to help them. Will you?

    Once again, please read those sites because it’s really interesting and it will show how Rome still don not want to change on population problem.

    God bless

    Like

  5. Ebouty says:

    Chazmo, please shut your dirty and creamy mouth. You embarrassed yourself if you keep on talking while a crow bar stuck in your a_s.

    All I need is just your reply to my posts that I gave you on Ambrose, Cyprian and Eusebius and many more to come. Don’t waste your time on your nonsense, for I’m not sure whether to waste my time replying too to your nonsense or not.

    This is for your own good otherwise that craw bar will somewhere appear.

    So from now on I’m not going to waste my time on Lunatics for they don’t want to know the truth even though things are so easily to be understood.

    Cheers

    Like

  6. Ebouty says:

    EBOUTY CHECKMATE YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED AND YOUR SOUL IS IN GRAVE PERIL…Repent now while you can!

    Wow! Checkmate for not telling the truth? This is funny for truly what I should pray for is for words that I often used that shows disrespect, but for the truth no way. Unless you explain to me what those Fathers meant in their comments that I gave you, I can repent and go to the Priest who died for me on the cross for confession.

    I’m finish with you for now until I get what I want. Good luck and God bless you

    Like

  7. Ebouty says:

    CHAZ-MINO I called you Chazmino, because MINO means stupid, lunatics, maniac and foolish so it is suitable for you unless YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THOSE FATHERS MEAN IN THEIR COMMENTS. ALSO ON WHICH SIDE THEIR INTERPRETATION FALLS IN. IS IT ON YOUR SIDE THAT THE CHURCH WAS BUILD ON PETER’S FLESH OR ON THE PROTESTANTS’ SIDE WHERE THE CHURCH WAS BUILD ON HIS CONFESSION (FAITH)?

    Is not that simple? Like I said I have no desire to continue a debate with FOOL SHIT SATANIC MIND unless I get what I want.

    My advice to you if you cannot then don’t show up for in that you will increase your foolishness and add more shame on your face which will affect others which is so sad, you know what I mean right?

    See you when you decide to explain those fathers’ comments, or you like to know more of them? I will do that, if you like, not here but in a proper post.

    God bless

    Like

  8. Chazmo says:

    Hmmm did i hear something…sounded like someone who has been discredited and no longer has a voice…..

    Like

  9. Chazmo says:

    FOR ALL NON CATHOLICS TO READ……this is what it boils down to……

    The question essentially reduces to the infallible-fallible card that Protestants try to play against Catholics. Catholics rightly ask Protestants to guarantee that they are preaching the “true gospel” since there are many of them out there (Cf. Galatians 1:6-9). No Protestant, however, can guarantee the truthfulness of his gospel since it would mean calling in the question of the speaker’s infallibility. In order to validate his interpretation over his Protestant opponent, the first Protestant must claim something that his opponent does not have; namely, the charism of infallibility. For the Gospel to have any true and definitive meaning (which it must), the Protestant must be able to appeal to a source which *cannot* be common to everyone. This source must be *outside* of the Bible to show that any one Protestant’s interpretation is correct. If indeed the Gospel is God’s inspired, infallible Word, then what good is it if Christians cannot be certain that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached? If God did not make sufficient provision for the Gospel message to be declared infallibly, then God would not be God, He would be a sadist.
    But, the Protestant will say, the Catholic is in the same position since he must make a private, fallible judgement on the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He will claim that the Catholic is simply substituting one alleged infallible source (the Bible ) with another (the Church). So we have the fallible Protestant reading an alleged infallible Bible , and we have a fallible Catholic listening to an alleged infallible Church.
    But is the Protestant construction of the problem a fair one? Nope. You see, some propositions are manifestly infallible by their very nature. For instance, there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation. Likewise, I propose that it is a naturally manifest and infallible fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Now, there are not too many Churches that even claim such a charism so I will restrict myself to simply proving from reason alone that one must believe that God established an infallible Church. Once this is conceded, then we may turn our attention to try and find out which Church it is.
    The following arguments, obviously, presuppose that I am addressing this question to a Protestant who believes in God. Of course, I would have to prove a few of these premises if I were addressing an atheist which is not within the scope of this examination.
    Argument 1
    Premise 1:
    God exists.
    Premise 2:
    God is omnipotent.
    Premise 3:
    The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.
    Premise 4:
    The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.
    Conclusion:
    God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means – an impossibility give Premise 2.
    Argument 2
    Premise 1:
    The truth can be known.
    Premise 2:
    God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly. (Conclusion of Argument 1)
    Conclusion:
    Therefore, God wants the truth in the Holy Scriptures to be known ONLY fallibly.
    Overall Conclusion
    Since God wills the gospel message to be known only with the possibility of error (that is, fallibly), then God wills the possibility of error in communicating His truth. The conclusion therefore is that God has contradicted His very being by willing something that cannot be; namely, willing something other than the truth.
    Now, the question is this:

    In order to reject the conclusion, which premise does he reject?
    [To remain a Christian, one must reject Premise 4 in Argument 1. If this premise is rejected, however, Sola Scriptura is also rejected, and an infallible human authority is conversely conceded, which means I have at least proven that we require an infallible teacher. Mr. Svendsen’s challenge specifically asks if Rome is that “true” Church. I will address that issue in Challenge 3. This response at least establishes the necessity of having a true and infallible church in the first place, which represents half the battle.]

    THANK YOU JOHN PACHEO FOR THIS IRONCLAD LOGIC!!!!
    The whole article is located here:
    http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/EasyMoney.aspx

    Like

  10. Ebouty says:

    See! nothing to say from you…..keep up the good work.

    I’m waiting for your response or explanation my brother. And also what took you so long to reply now, but with another nonsense?

    I told you, oh wait a minute, I’ll write it in capital letters so that you will have no problem reading it. I TOLD YOU TO EXPLAIN THOSE FATHERS TO ME, AND THAT IS WHY I DID NOT WASTE MY TIME REPLYING TO NONSENSE FOR I’M WAITING. TELL ME IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM SO I CAN CONTINUE WITH THE REST OF YOUR FUNNY COMMENTS.

    Maybe not today or this month, but next month right?

    Did you read those articles? Tell me if you did.

    By the way what did you hear? My challenge that you cannot reply to? You really are a joker. No wonder someone in this site says that he was not interest in debating you because you lack understanding. He prefer someone whom he thinks he has more knowledge than you. Aren’t you ashamed of keeping running your mouth with a brain that contains nothing as others says? So how can I desire to continue with you if you cannot reply to my questions of truth? Wake up.

    By the way, what you said and I quote, “Hmmm did i hear something…sounded like someone who has been discredited and no longer has a voice” refer to you. Don’t you know that?

    So be a man, if someone challenge you act professionally and with intellect, give him what he want, but don’t try to change the subject.

    Like I said I also say bad words to someone who prefer to be in the darkness even though he knows the truth.

    Bear in mind that this website read by everyone and if you want to be a real Apologist, if that is your intention, be good in respond to questions. Imagine others who recognized you and knew that you cannot answer simple questions and they knew also that you are a stubborn for keeping running your mouth what will you think?

    Again I will continue with your remaining comments above when I get your explanation so I have to be silence. But if you said that you cannot then I will continue but that then was the GREATEST MOMENT OF MY LIFE for another defeated Romanist.

    God bless

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: