Bread of life discourse as metaphor

[guanophore]

Why shouldn’t Justin tell the truth?

This is a very strange question. Justin Martyr was a Catholic. He believed in the authority of the Apostolic succession, the power of the 7 sacraments(including baptismal regeneration) and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

The better question is, why don’t you believe he was telling the Truth?

Please explain what you think is explicit, and why you think that?

Catholic Teaching is explicit to us in Scripture because we read it through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teaching of the Apostles infallibly preserved by the HS in the Church. Reformed Christians read the Scriptures in separation from the faith that produced them, so they understand them differently than we do.

What’s continued is the OT prohibition against blood.

No, WCH. If you go back and read your own posts, you will see that it was you that claimed that Scripture must be understood in the light of other scripture. There are no contradictions in the text. If it appears there is a contradiciton, then you are not understanding it correctly.

Yeah, I know, and that’s irrelevant. Paul says that what he told the Corinthian Church is what he was told by Jesus, personally. Obviously Jesus didn’t connect John 6, and the bread of life discourse to the Eucharist when He revealed it to Paul (cf 1 Cor 11:23-26).

This is how it seems to you, but for the Apostles, and those who have received the faith from them, it is otherwise.

I stated the criterion: an expectation.

So the early Church fathers, and the writers of Scripture “should” write what you expect them to write?

Because, as I said, Paul doesn’t say anything about John 6 in 1 Cor 11 where he tells the Corinthians that he delivered to them what the Lord delivered to him (v23).

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

Oh please. You expect to me to believe that 2 Cor 12:4-5 says that Paul shouldn’t talk about the Lord’s Supper?

No, but many things were revealed to him about which he was not permitted to speak. So your assumption that he “should” write what you “expect” him to write is not correct.

C’mon. 2 Cor 12:4-5 has nothing to do with Paul’s account of the Lord’s supper in 1 Cor 11.

And just how would you know that? Because you “expect” that it does not?

Paul recounts what the Lord told Him concerning the supper, and it’s purpose.

He is recounting the sacrifice of the Mass. There is much more to the supper and it’s purpose than what is contained in that small passage.

At the supper, they ate bread and drank the cup, and the purpose for the church doing that is to proclaim the death of the Lord until He returns (1 Cor 11:23-26).

Among other things, yes.

I’m not assuming anything about Paul. I’m pointing out that Paul delivered to the Corinthians what the Lord delivered to him. It’s all there in 1 Cor 11:23ff.

This is what you need to believe, to preserve your rejection of Sacred Tradition. We know otherwise.

“how could Justin do that?” He’s dead.

“You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. …have you not read what was said to you by God, 32’I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Matt 22:29-32

Weren’t you just arguing yesterday that those who die in the Lord live forever?
WCH;7939243:

Sure I can. According to Paul, Jesus told Paul about the Supper, and He also told Paul the Gospel (1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:11-12). There’re a couple of things Jesus told Paul.

The Truth is that you have no way of knowing what all Jesus told Paul. You are operating on an erroneous assumption that all of it is contained in Scripture. This is a grievious error.

 And in so doing, Paul never once mentioned John 6.

Of course not, since it would be several decades before it was written. Honestly, do you understand anything about how the New Testament came together?

Where, in any of his epistles, does Paul refer to John 6? I can’t think of anywhere.

And he was martryrd before it was written as well. You are making a fool of yourself.

Aren’t those the words of Jesus: “do this in remembrance of me,” aren’t those Jesus’ words?

Yes. The anamnesis.

I’ve heard the anamnesis argument a thousand times, and argued against it that many times as well.

Why? I am curious why one would reject this Apostolic Teaching.

I’ve said a few times to all who have responded with that fact, that it’s irrelevant.

So where does Paul say that Jesus referred to anything recorded in John 6 as having anything to do with the Lord’s Supper?

I see that we are back to the same inability to abstract. The pickle is still a cucumber in your world.

 

[guanophore]

Anamnesis simply means “remembrance,” or “recollection,” viz:

Hebrews 10:3

**But in those sacrifices there is a reminder [anamnesis] of sins year by year. **
*Anamnesis: *A reminder, remembrance, recollection.

It is a particulare form of rememberance, WCH. It is a ritual enactment, like the Passover in which it is set, and which it fulfills. In case you forgot, when the Jews performed the anamnesis of the Passover, a real lamb was literally slain, and everyone was commanded to eat the flesh. This is a type of the Eucharist.

You brought up anamnesis; therefore, the burden of proof concerning it, is yours.

Well, if you have already rejected it hundreds of times, what is the point of discussing it at all?

 

[guanophore]

I gave a definition from a Greek Lexicon, unlike you.

Yes, you did. And like the Scriptures, you have misunderstood what was written.

Why do you think I’d make it up?

Because you have testified that you embrace quite a few ideas that were made up during the Reformation.

Is your definition inspired by God? Nope.

On the contrary, Jesus affirmed that the books of Moses are most definitely the Word of God.

Oh for heaven’s sake.

It is required here that you cite your sources. If you wish to continue posting, you will have to follow the forum rules. You have made it clear that you have an authority problem, but maybe you can work on it?

That’s funny, and no, the Pope and magisterium are not “inspired,” as were the prophets and the apostles.

It is a good thing for your sake this is not true. If it were, you would have no Bible.

It’s not up to me to convince you of the truth, but it is the purview of the HS.

Thank God for that! You seem to have missed out on a significant portion of Truth.

 

[WCH]

The better question is, why don’t you believe he was telling the Truth?

The poster said so. If you’re going to jump into the middle of a conversation, at least try and pay attention to what’s been said, and try and get facts right.

Catholic Teaching is explicit…

You’re dodging.

No, WCH.

Yes, the prohibition concerning blood in the OT is upheld in Acts.

So the early Church fathers, and the writers of Scripture “should” write what you expect them to write?

Ya’ll have a nasty habit of twisting the words of others. Guess that’s what happens when you have nothing of value to say.

And just how would you know that?

The context of the passage. Obviously, you weren’t taught about context in “seminary,” or in any English classes.

This is what you need to believe, to preserve your rejection of Sacred Tradition. We know otherwise.

No, guanophore, that is what is clearly stated by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23.

The Truth is that you have no way of knowing what all Jesus told Paul.

Yes I do. Paul says Jesus told him all about the last supper, and it’s apparent that nothing John said in the bread of life discourse has anything to do with the Last Supper because Paul never refers to it. Read the passage in 1 Cor 11:23ff, and you’ll see.

Of course not, since it would be several decades before it was written. Honestly, do you understand anything about how the New Testament came together?

Guanophore, I’ve already established that your point is irrelevant.

Paul states in 1 Cor 11:23 that Christ delivered to him the teachings of the Last Supper, and what Jesus refers to Paul is clearly the night of the last Passover, and nothing of the bread of life discourse in John 6.

And he was martryrd before it was written as well. You are making a fool of yourself.

See above, and stop acting foolishly.

Seriously, WCH, I am getting concerned that you are suffering a mental impairment. You keep demanding that Paul should have quoted from a book that was not yet written, and when we point out the foolishness of such a demand, you say it is irrelevant. Have you seen a doctor?

Get the wax out of your ears guanophore.

If you’re going to jump into the middle of a conversation, at least try and know what you’re talking about.

 

[WCH]

Yes, you did. And like the Scriptures, you have misunderstood what was written.

It’s a word definition, guanophore. Now I’ll grant the lexical definition is not nearly as elaborate as the Catholic defintion, but truth is simple and accurate, and I’ll take the simple and accurate lexical definition over yours, anyday.

Because you have testified that you embrace quite a few ideas that were made up during the Reformation.

So do you.

On the contrary, Jesus affirmed that the books of Moses are most definitely the Word of God.

Non-sequitur.

It is required here that you cite your sources. If you wish to continue posting, you will have to follow the forum rules. You have made it clear that you have an authority problem, but maybe you can work on it?

You’re getting desperate, I see.

The definition of desperate is, “having lost hope.” That’s a dictionary definition I’ve stated without citing the source.

It is a good thing for your sake this is not true. If it were, you would have no Bible.

More desperation.

Thank God for that! You seem to have missed out on a significant portion of Truth.

That’s the answer of one who’s running out of things to say, but who, nevertheless, must say something.

 

[WCH]

It is a particulare form of rememberance, WCH.

And how many forms of remembrance are there, guanophore, and how do you know that?

Well, if you have already rejected it hundreds of times, what is the point of discussing it at all?

A remembrance, reminder, recollection.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Ya’ll have a nasty habit of twisting the words of others. Guess that’s what happens when you have nothing of value to say.

This is a common psychological difficulty that you’re experiencing, WCH. It’s called projecting. It’s what happens when you misunderstand the actions of others and instead believe them to be doing what you, in fact, are doing.

Perhaps, instead of projecting your tendency to “have nothing of value to say” on others, you might try projecting your “correct” interpretation of John 6 onto this thread so that you might actually have something of value to say. So, let’s have it: please explain John 6 to us poor, blinded Catholics so that the Holy Spirit might convict us of your infallible authority.

 

[WCH]

This is a common psychological difficulty that you’re experiencing, WCH. It’s called projecting. It’s what happens when you misunderstand the actions of others and instead believe them to be doing what you, in fact, are doing.

You mean, like you’re doing right now?

 

[Tiberius1701]

You mean, like you’re doing right now?

I’ve offered two very detailed posts about how to interpret John 6 from the Catholic perspective. And you’ve offered exactly this:

(End quote.)

So, WCH, where’s your “something of value to say” again? Give us a logical, reasoned interpretation of John 6, or stop wasting our time.

 

[WCH]

I’ve offered two very detailed posts about how to interpret John 6 from the Catholic perspective. And you’ve offered exactly this:

I’ve told you why I’m offering that.

Furthermore, you said you weren’t going to respond to me until I offered an explanation of John 6, which I haven’t done. You’re another one who is unable to keep his word.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I’ve told you why I’m offering that.

Furthermore, you said you weren’t going to respond to me until I offered an explanation of John 6, which I haven’t done. You’re another one who is unable to keep his word.

I’ve only responded to your inability to answer that question by continuously directing you to answer it. That’s what I meant when I said, “that’s all I’m going to respond to from you, from this point onward.” I will only respond to your answer, or to your lack thereof. Since you have no answer, I continue to call you to offer one up. Since, based on your non-answers, it seem that you believe that the Holy Spirit is the only person permitted to interpret those things written by the Holy Spirit, then I am certainly allowed to infallibly interpret those things which I have written.

So, what’s your interpretation of John 6? Shall I give you multiple choice? Or do you admit that you have no answer?

 

[WCH]

I’ve only responded…

I’m going to have to put you on ignore, Tiberius.

Obviously, the Spirit isn’t with you, or you’d keep your word.

Goodbye

 

[Tiberius1701]

I’m going to have to put you on ignore, Tiberius.

Obviously, the Spirit isn’t with you, or you’d keep your word.

Goodbye

Right. Because I demand you speak the truth about what you believe. Clearly, that’s the work of the Devil. Makes sense.

St. Macarius of Jerusalem, pray for WCH. May the Holy Spirit pour out heavenly grace upon him or her without measure, and may he/she come to know the fullness of Divine Truth. Amen.

 

[WCH]

This message is hidden because **Tiberius1701 **is on your ignore list.

I keep my word, TB…

 

[Tiberius1701]

This message is hidden because **Tiberius1701 **is on your ignore list.

I keep my word, TB…

Didn’t think you wouldn’t. But I and the Saints are still praying for you. God be with you.

 

[guanophore]

The poster said so. If you’re going to jump into the middle of a conversation, at least try and pay attention to what’s been said, and try and get facts right.

Ok, but why would you not believe Justin Martyr.

You’re dodging.

No, WCH, I am not. Catholic Teaching is explicit. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT came OUT of Catholicism, not the other way around. Catholicism, unlike Reformation ecclesial communities, is not a “bible church”.

Yes, the prohibition concerning blood in the OT is upheld in Acts.

Ok WCH. You have the right to believe whatever you wish. If it pleases you to believe this, I commend you to your ignorance.

Ya’ll have a nasty habit of twisting the words of others. Guess that’s what happens when you have nothing of value to say.

Or perhaps you have not thought thorugh the implications of your words?

If you think we have nothing of value to say, why are you here?

 The context of the passage. Obviously, you weren’t taught about context in “seminary,” or in any English classes.

I have since also learned a few things about context. The context of the NT is the Catholic
Church. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, that is why there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

No, guanophore, that is what is clearly stated by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23.

I can understand why you would see it that way. You are part of a faith tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic Faith now for 500+ years.

Yes I do. Paul says Jesus told him all about the last supper, and it’s apparent that nothing John said in the bread of life discourse has anything to do with the Last Supper because Paul never refers to it. Read the passage in 1 Cor 11:23ff, and you’ll see.

LOL. This is what is known as a non-sequitor.

And you are still thinking that Paul should refer to a book that had not yet been written. A fixed false belief of this kind is called a delusion.

Guanophore, I’ve already established that your point is irrelevant.

I am glad you have been able to establish such things for yourself, young one. It seems that you have established the same about others here on CAF. One really has to wonder why a person would spend so much time investing in what they claim are irrelevancies.

Paul states in 1 Cor 11:23 that Christ delivered to him the teachings of the Last Supper, and what Jesus refers to Paul is clearly the night of the last Passover, and nothing of the bread of life discourse in John 6.

I understand that it is essential foryou to cling to this false belief. If you were to accept the apostolic teaching in this matter, your entire theological underpinnings would fall unravel.

Get the wax out of your ears guanophore.

I wonder how many times an adult has said this to you? One gets the sense, when reading it, that it has gotten lodged in there after years of practice.

 

[WCH]

Ok, but why would you not believe Justin Martyr.

No, WCH, I am not. Catholic Teaching is explicit. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT came OUT of Catholicism, not the other way around. Catholicism, unlike Reformation ecclesial communities, is not a “bible church”.

Ok WCH. You have the right to believe whatever you wish. If it pleases you to believe this, I commend you to your ignorance.

Or perhaps you have not thought thorugh the implications of your words?

If you think we have nothing of value to say, why are you here?

I have since also learned a few things about context. The context of the NT is the Catholic
Church. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, that is why there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

I can understand why you would see it that way. You are part of a faith tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic Faith now for 500+ years.

LOL. This is what is known as a non-sequitor.

And you are still thinking that Paul should refer to a book that had not yet been written. A fixed false belief of this kind is called a delusion.

I am glad you have been able to establish such things for yourself, young one. It seems that you have established the same about others here on CAF. One really has to wonder why a person would spend so much time investing in what they claim are irrelevancies.

I understand that it is essential foryou to cling to this false belief. If you were to accept the apostolic teaching in this matter, your entire theological underpinnings would fall unravel.

I wonder how many times an adult has said this to you? One gets the sense, when reading it, that it has gotten lodged in there after years of practice.

Talking points.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve offered two very detailed posts about how to interpret John 6 from the Catholic perspective. And you’ve offered exactly this:

(End quote.)

So, WCH, where’s your “something of value to say” again? Give us a logical, reasoned interpretation of John 6, or stop wasting our time.

I fear that waste may all we have in store, Tiberius. Our impudent little sister apparently is not here to get Catholic answers, and seems to delight in attempting to yank our chain. I suggest we pray for her.

Dear Lord, bring deliverance from impudence, and create a heart that is meek and ready to receive your instruction. May she receive the implanted word that is able to save souls, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I fear that waste may all we have in store, Tiberius. Our impudent little sister apparently is not here to get Catholic answers, and seems to delight in attempting to yank our chain. I suggest we pray for her.

Dear Lord, bring deliverance from impudence, and create a heart that is meek and ready to receive your instruction. May she receive the implanted word that is able to save souls, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Amen. I have been praying for her and shall continue to do so. God be with you, Guanophore.

 

[guanophore]

 It's a word definition, guanophore. Now I'll grant the lexical definition is not nearly as elaborate as the Catholic defintion, but truth is simple and accurate, and I'll take the simple and accurate lexical definition over yours, anyday.

You are creating a false dichotomy, WCH. An elaborate truth does not need to lack simplicity and accuracy. Besides, the definition you gave is accurate. It is your understanding of it that is not. We receive the term “anamnesis” from the Hebrew, so the context of it’s meaning is found in the Hebrew ritual observances given to the nation by Moses.

So do you.

Is that so? I am curious to find out more about these. What doctrines do I posess that were invented during the Reformation?

Non-sequitur.

A non-sequitur, WCH is something that does not logically follow. If you say that our understanding of the term “anamnesis” faith is not based in the Word of God, and I remind you that the books of Moses are the Word of God, it logically follows.

The only way that you would not be able to logically follow this concept is if you are reasoning illogically. The more you post, the more this appears to be the case.

You’re getting desperate, I see.

No, WCH, there is no desparation in the requirement that we all follow the forum rules. If you feel a sense of desperation in following rules, then it may be a result of the problem you have with authority. I can tell you for sure, if you continue your obstreperous behavior, then you will not be posting here for long. That may not concern you at all, since you don’t seem to have come here for Catholic Answers anyway.

The definition of desperate is, “having lost hope.” That’s a dictionary definition I’ve stated without citing the source.

Are you saying it is hopeless to expect you to follow the forum rules? I guess I will just have to accept it if that is the case. You seem willful, which would indicate that you are able to apply your will toward a goal. But, if you do not follow the forum rules because you think they should not apply to you, then I guess being willful will not help you.

More desperation.

The Bible, WCH, is a product of the authority Jesus bestowed upon the Catholic Church

I guess you really are desperate to avoid crediting the Catholic Church with anything.

And how many forms of remembrance are there, guanophore, and how do you know that?

YOu know, I have never tried to count them. I am so satisfied with the one that Jesus commissioned us to follow that I have never really felt a need to look for more. In the Eucharist, He is the “all in all” and becomes the complete fulfillment of the Passover, serving as both the sacrificial lamb, and the High Priest.

A remembrance, reminder, recollection.

If you ever decide to pursue maturity in your spiritual walk WCH, I encourage you to study the Passover, and the nature of the enacted rememberance performed by the Jews. You will find that it was not a random choice that He chose that specific ritual in which to situation His Own Body and Blood.