T
Tiberius1701
Guest
I wholeheartedly agree. I tried so diligently to simply get a single answer to a single, repeated question, that WCH, in demonstration of his or her “sincerity” in discourse, has put me on her/his ignore list.
- Status
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Tiberius1701,
I’ve only been posting here for a little over two years. However, in that time, I’ve met wonderful people who want to discuss the issues and are genuinely interested in understanding differences in beliefs and why people believe what they do. Sadly, others come here with an entirely different agenda.
Peace to you Tiberius,
Anna
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Same here.Tiberius1701,
I’ve only been posting here for a little over two years. However, in that time, I’ve met wonderful people who want to discuss the issues and are genuinely interested in understanding differences in beliefs and why people believe what they do. Sadly, others come here with an entirely different agenda.
Peace to you Tiberius,
Anna
Our responsibility is only for our own witness and response to God; that of others is between them and Him.Peace be with you as well, Anna,
Jackford
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Very true.Same here.
Peace be with you as well, Anna,
Jackford
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Six times Jesus in John 6 repeated it was REALLY his flesh. His audience,
largely his disciples, were already familar w/ his terms of speech, including
allegories, parables, metaphors (“that fox” refering to Herod) When people
wrongly took Jesus literally, he corrected them: Jn 3:3-5, Jn 11:11-14, Jn
8:21-23, Mt 19:24. When people took Jesus literally and he agreed he confirmed
and repeated Mt 9:2-6, Jn 8:56-59, Jn 6: 41-51. When the MAJORITY of his
followers leave him (John 6:66) because they understand Jesus literally, Jesus
says nothing to correct any misunderstanding. He turns Peter and the other
apostles and says, “are you also going to leave.” He does NOT explain the
meaning to the apostles likes he does the parables–he spoke clearly and was
understood as he intended–literally.
The ONLY metaphoric meaning for “eat ones blood, drink one’s blood” in aramaic
and koine greek (or modern greek, modern aramaic, and arabic) means “to do
assault, especially by calumny or slander”–which sense is used repeatedly in
scripture. Ps 27:2, Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Mic 3:3, 2 Sam 23:15-17, Rev 17:6,16
So by the ONLY metaphor these jews would have understood, jesus was saying…
John6:54 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except attack the
Son of man, slander him, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that heaps
calumny on me, and wrecks my good name, hath everlasting life: and I will raise
him up in the last day”.
—This is of course ridiculous.
largely his disciples, were already familar w/ his terms of speech, including
allegories, parables, metaphors (“that fox” refering to Herod) When people
wrongly took Jesus literally, he corrected them: Jn 3:3-5, Jn 11:11-14, Jn
8:21-23, Mt 19:24. When people took Jesus literally and he agreed he confirmed
and repeated Mt 9:2-6, Jn 8:56-59, Jn 6: 41-51. When the MAJORITY of his
followers leave him (John 6:66) because they understand Jesus literally, Jesus
says nothing to correct any misunderstanding. He turns Peter and the other
apostles and says, “are you also going to leave.” He does NOT explain the
meaning to the apostles likes he does the parables–he spoke clearly and was
understood as he intended–literally.
The ONLY metaphoric meaning for “eat ones blood, drink one’s blood” in aramaic
and koine greek (or modern greek, modern aramaic, and arabic) means “to do
assault, especially by calumny or slander”–which sense is used repeatedly in
scripture. Ps 27:2, Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Mic 3:3, 2 Sam 23:15-17, Rev 17:6,16
So by the ONLY metaphor these jews would have understood, jesus was saying…
John6:54 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except attack the
Son of man, slander him, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that heaps
calumny on me, and wrecks my good name, hath everlasting life: and I will raise
him up in the last day”.
—This is of course ridiculous.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
:clapping:
po18guy
Well-known member
Simply put, for churches that are non-Apostolic, the bread of life discourse (BOLD) must be a metaphor. For those churches with history tracing only to the bible, or at most to post-reformation splintering, BOLD must be a metaphor. For those churches that examine the bible in a vacuum - separated from Church history, the BOLD might appear to be a metaphor.
However, those who claim that the BOLD is a metaphor ignore its fulfillment as given in Matthew 26, Mark 15 and Luke 22. They cannot explain why this “metaphor” had to be eaten - that Jesus commanded the Apostles to eat and drink, and they did. The metaphor folks ignore the practice of the infant Church. They ignore 1,977 years of consistent Eucharistic practice. Unwittingly revealing their motive, they also conveniently ignore the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches and go after only the Catholic Church.
This speaks to me of the truth that resides in the Catholic faith.
However, those who claim that the BOLD is a metaphor ignore its fulfillment as given in Matthew 26, Mark 15 and Luke 22. They cannot explain why this “metaphor” had to be eaten - that Jesus commanded the Apostles to eat and drink, and they did. The metaphor folks ignore the practice of the infant Church. They ignore 1,977 years of consistent Eucharistic practice. Unwittingly revealing their motive, they also conveniently ignore the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches and go after only the Catholic Church.
This speaks to me of the truth that resides in the Catholic faith.
P
PJM
Guest
SPACE LIMITS MY REPLY: **The O.C. is voided by the New Covenant. ** Heb.8: 6 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
I AM the Vine is a moral teaching that identifies the need for all of us to be firmly ATTACHED to Christ; Christ Teaching abd Christ One Church, NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD EVEN HINT THAT MORE THAN ONE GOD; or ONE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS IS ACCEPTABLE TO HIM
BIBLE ON THEE EUCHARIST
**Mt.26: 26 **“Take, eat; this is my body.” … for this is my blood of the covenant, .
Mark 14: "Take; this is my body. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Luke 22:19 “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
John 6:41-69:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?”
This means: That unless they can and DO accept Jesus as BOTH GOD and MAN [the Father’s Will], …that salvation will be denied to them. WHY? Because they were presented the OPPORTUNITY to KNOW CHRIST as GOD; to Know the singular truth and CHOOSE NOT TOO.
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
We see clear evidence of the FACT that they are ONLY able to see Christ as another human being. BUT notice again the response of Christ to their wrong and very limited understanding. There is NO DENIAL of His words, or His Teaching.
54 “He-who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ***[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ***
It is evident that Christ means exactly what He is saying. Christ could not possibly be more specific or more precise or more - clear! And when Catholic worthily receives Holy Communion; this intimacy of UNION: We in Christ and Christ in Us is exactly what takes place. NOTE: Christ is specifically and precisely denying their incorrect understanding of “My Flesh …and MY Blood.” … they seeing Christ as ONLY another human being are thinking of Christ CORPORAL Body, Christ COPORAL BLOOD. While Christ is speaking of HIS SOON TO BE GLORIFIED and RISEN [now perfected in every conceivable manner] Body and Blood. Still REALLY Christ; BUT NOW it is REALLY Christ in His Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity: In other WORDS, the “complete Christ,” … True God and True man.
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
- NOTE: Jesus lets them leave [abandon Him and their own salvation. ] Christ does NOT call them back; does NOT deny what He has TAUGHT and said. In fact He tries Twice more to give them RIGHT UNDERSTANDING.
- [63] It is the spirit that gives life the flesh is of no avail…. Christ is NOT saying that it is NOT Real Blood and Flesh; He is saying It is my GLOROFIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity: MY CARDNAL BODY as you understand it to be. My CARDINAL FLESH is Human as is YOUR’s: My GLORIFIED BODY however is ME… COMPLETELY… BOTH, as God and man. That it ME AS GOD that you receive [Spirit and truth… **John.4: But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24] God is spirit, * and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."] Under the FORM of Bread and Wine in my HUMAN GLORIFIED BODY, because I as God; like the Father and Holy Spirit am “SPIRIT.” This New Covenant in “My BLOOD” MUST include by REAL Glorified Body. Jesus is again saying and explaining that even HIS flesh as ONLY a man is of no value for one’s salvation. It is, and HAS TO BE Christ [the SON OF GOD] that saves and has value. [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. [THEY ABANDONED GOD: NOT UNDERSTANING CORRECTLY HIS WORDS.]
- And what was the response of Christ? Did he recant His Teaching? NO; just the opposite:[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” [68] Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life "
“This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Simple logic affirms that one cannot profane God by mistreating Ordinary bread, and Ordinary wine. No; what is spoken about; believed and correctly understood is the Eucharist is Mysteriously transformed into the VERY REAL: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Himself……*
M
mdgspencer
Guest
Just my thought on the question of the Old Testament prohibition on drinking blood. No Christians believe in this prohibition now. Jews, following the Law, will only eat meat from which the blood has been thoroughly drained. Christians do not do this, and many like to eat rare meet in which all the blood has not even been cooked. The question of drinking blood came up on another thread here, and people mentioned traditionally-Christian countries in which cooked blood used in cooking is an ingregient in the national diet. I now live in the Philippines after retiring from the U.S., and people here have cooked animal blood, and the Philippines is almost 100% Christian. (though frankly I skip such dishes myself.)
I am happy the flame wars on this thread seem to have ended.
I am happy the flame wars on this thread seem to have ended.
D
djeter
Guest
Yes, I would have said that had I wished to be cogent and paying attention to detail…
M
mangy_dog
Guest
His flesh-the Bread of Life…His blood-the Cup of Salvation…gee whiz, I don’t know why [we] or rather He would break or go against the OT law.
I do know that He did not come to replace the old law but to perfect it. So, there must be a perfection that He is establishing with His flesh and His blood that does not break or replace the old laws.
There seems to be a perfection that is occuring and that “we” continue to this day. And I’m sure there is a deep theological reason it is not a breaking or replacing of the OT law but a perfecting of the same.
It is not animal blood “we” are talking about here- it is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
I.
I would point out that both Jesus and John can characterize a statement as figurative quite clearly: either explicitly (re the temple in 2:21, the gate in 10:6, and a woman in labor in 16:25, 29) or in other ways (6:32-35; 11:11-14). Yet there is no mention of metaphor, symbol, parable, or figure in 6:52-63. Also in Jn the word “spirit” is not used to characterize a statement as figurative.
II.
I would also point out that the structure and dynamic of the narrative in Jn 6 make it quite clear that the meaning in 6:52-59 is literal.
The discourse of Jesus in Jn 6 has two parts. Both are important:
(A) vv 35-50 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us in His TEACHING and in our personal RELATIONSHIP with Him.
–a transition in v 51 - “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
(B) vv 52-58 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us as the true Passover Lamb, who gives His slain body and spilled blood for the life of the world.
In both (A) and (B) as elsewhere in his gospel John uses the protests of “the Jews” as foils to stress Jesus affirmative, literal meaning.
In the case of (A), in 6:41 he narrates that “the Jews” challenge how Jesus can have come down from heaven; and John also recounts Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:43-50, esp. v 46) which comports with His same teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jn 1:18; 3:13,31).
We than transition in 6:51 from the first part to the second part.
Again in (B) the pointed protestations of “the Jews” (6:52) serve as a foil for Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:52-58) that is nothing short of in your face as to its meaning. He says it 6 times in 7 verses–that we must eat his body and drink his blood.
It should be noted that “the Jews” also protest Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw His day and was glad (8:56). The author again narrates Jesus’ affirmative, literal response (8:58-59). Later these are “the Jews” who also want to stone Jesus in protest for saying He and the Father are one (10:30-31). He again goes on to give a literal, affirmative response (10:32-39). In all these cases (including 6:41,52) “the Jews” understood exactly what Jesus meant.
Back to Jn 6, next the evangelist notes that even some of Jesus’ “disciples” were perplexed (6:60) and He responds by asking if this teaching “shocks” them, and then says something else that He will literally do: ascend into heaven. And then the gospel writer comments that because of this teaching many of Jesus’ disciples left (v 66). Even this did not cause Jesus or the evangelist to allegorize or apologize.
- Status