P
Philthy
Guest
In other situations, discussions, lectures by Christ to them…he would say things like “Why are you so dense”…or something to that effect…and he’d SOMETIMES explain things…but not always. So I guess I was assuming this is all part of what the Counselor was going to straighten out for them.
Assuming??? In other words, you dont know because Scripture isnt very clear in this instance. That is not very inspiring, is it. You are left guessing, if the truth be told. And the problem is, it’s a very important passage because this is the point where the disciples themselves rejected Christ and his teaching. Dont you think its important to know exactly why? Yet Scripture, if we assume your interpretation of John 6 be correct, leaves us basically clueless.
Refresh me on this…when do they express literal interpretation. If you are going to site a Catholic writing…then I’m going to feel lost again, because I don’t feel informed enough about who all these early Catholic folks were. I understand Peter to have been the “first Priest”…not even sure if that’s correct…so I have some history to cover before I can comprehend and adopt that stuff.
Be very careful dear. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” (Neumann, Anglican clergy convert to Catholicism in the late 1800’s) Anyhow, I will provide you with a link to the Early Church Fathers - aka the early leaders of the Church - at Corinth, Antioch, Rome, etc These were the men that the Apostles “passed the baton” to. Dont you want to know what these first generation Christians believed and practiced? One such man was St Ignatious - he was a disciple of the Apostle John, and was a martyr as well. You would think that someone who was a companion of Johns would have a pretty good idea what John meant in John 6, no?
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
I assume here, you meant to say “…will NOT have eternal life.”
No Doreen, you missed the point. If we assume a symbolic interpretation of “eat my flesh and drink my blood” that means we render it to mean “insults me”. That is what the term meant in Christs time and still today among the Palestinians. We can then apply that meaning to the statement “who ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” and substitue our “symbolic” meaning. When we do, the statement becomes, “Whoever insults me has eternal life …” Its good to see that you understood that it didnt make sense - the only problem is that if you propose a symbolic interpretation then the entire discourse is rendered meaningless.
And here’s my understanding and thoughts about the quote “eat the flesh and drink the blood:” Maybe the term “symbolic” isn’t really fitting to the experience of the act of the “supper”…for lack of a more non-demoninational term… I DO feel that a spiritual, supernatural thing happens when the church (believers in Christ) gather together and partake together.
Not good enough, Im afraid. A “spiritual, supernatural thing” can mean a lot of different things to different people. And again, its not a reason to abandon Christ like the disciples did.
I was in tears last Sunday in doing just that. I hold “communion” with Christ so very dear, and as such a great privilege, that it brings me to tears.
I know what you mean - but its irrelevent!
But the act of taking the bread and wine isn’t what I look to for full communion. I see Him wanting to simply meet with me in a quiet place —as often as possible—and I don’t understand why He’d come to save us in and of Himself, by His blood, giving Himself up, and then He’d still require me to depend on another person’s faith (a priest) to sanctify bread and wine and go through all kinds of ceremony like this in order to allow me to draw near to Him.
We are one body Doreen, in Christ. Some parts provide what others are lacking. You know that from Scripture. He wants us to be dependent upon one another and to provide for one another. It doesnt mean you cant pray anywhere you want and draw close to him. We are only talking about the “breaking of the bread” that the Apostles “devoted” themselves too. “This IS my body. Do this…” He commands us to do it - there is no getting around that.
Assuming??? In other words, you dont know because Scripture isnt very clear in this instance. That is not very inspiring, is it. You are left guessing, if the truth be told. And the problem is, it’s a very important passage because this is the point where the disciples themselves rejected Christ and his teaching. Dont you think its important to know exactly why? Yet Scripture, if we assume your interpretation of John 6 be correct, leaves us basically clueless.
Refresh me on this…when do they express literal interpretation. If you are going to site a Catholic writing…then I’m going to feel lost again, because I don’t feel informed enough about who all these early Catholic folks were. I understand Peter to have been the “first Priest”…not even sure if that’s correct…so I have some history to cover before I can comprehend and adopt that stuff.
Be very careful dear. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” (Neumann, Anglican clergy convert to Catholicism in the late 1800’s) Anyhow, I will provide you with a link to the Early Church Fathers - aka the early leaders of the Church - at Corinth, Antioch, Rome, etc These were the men that the Apostles “passed the baton” to. Dont you want to know what these first generation Christians believed and practiced? One such man was St Ignatious - he was a disciple of the Apostle John, and was a martyr as well. You would think that someone who was a companion of Johns would have a pretty good idea what John meant in John 6, no?
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
I assume here, you meant to say “…will NOT have eternal life.”
No Doreen, you missed the point. If we assume a symbolic interpretation of “eat my flesh and drink my blood” that means we render it to mean “insults me”. That is what the term meant in Christs time and still today among the Palestinians. We can then apply that meaning to the statement “who ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” and substitue our “symbolic” meaning. When we do, the statement becomes, “Whoever insults me has eternal life …” Its good to see that you understood that it didnt make sense - the only problem is that if you propose a symbolic interpretation then the entire discourse is rendered meaningless.
And here’s my understanding and thoughts about the quote “eat the flesh and drink the blood:” Maybe the term “symbolic” isn’t really fitting to the experience of the act of the “supper”…for lack of a more non-demoninational term… I DO feel that a spiritual, supernatural thing happens when the church (believers in Christ) gather together and partake together.
Not good enough, Im afraid. A “spiritual, supernatural thing” can mean a lot of different things to different people. And again, its not a reason to abandon Christ like the disciples did.
I was in tears last Sunday in doing just that. I hold “communion” with Christ so very dear, and as such a great privilege, that it brings me to tears.
I know what you mean - but its irrelevent!
But the act of taking the bread and wine isn’t what I look to for full communion. I see Him wanting to simply meet with me in a quiet place —as often as possible—and I don’t understand why He’d come to save us in and of Himself, by His blood, giving Himself up, and then He’d still require me to depend on another person’s faith (a priest) to sanctify bread and wine and go through all kinds of ceremony like this in order to allow me to draw near to Him.
We are one body Doreen, in Christ. Some parts provide what others are lacking. You know that from Scripture. He wants us to be dependent upon one another and to provide for one another. It doesnt mean you cant pray anywhere you want and draw close to him. We are only talking about the “breaking of the bread” that the Apostles “devoted” themselves too. “This IS my body. Do this…” He commands us to do it - there is no getting around that.
