P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
We’ve already been through this.
- Status
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
And, once again, if you believe that Jesus is literally a loaf of bread, then you must also believe that He is a door, a vine, and a chicken.
M
Mickey
Guest
And you were not successful. Your strange interpretation was not convincing.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Ex. 12: 5-15. verse 11 is the answer to your question.
O
Odell
Guest
And once again you dont know how to read or you just have no response
Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself Pastor Jim we give you this
When Jesus says, “I am the door.” not one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood not one asked what do you mean not one walked away. They understood him metaphorically.
When Jesus says “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine no one asked what do you mean your a vine that is a hard teaching. no one walked away
Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech “How can you give your flesh to eat”? They did not understand
again when Jesus said am a door or a vine no one said how are you a door how are you a vine
But here they dont undertand because they realize what it meant to eat blood they understood that to symbolically eat fleah and blood was to assult or persecute the one who is the symbol
Ps 27:2 - (26-2) Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that troubled me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen.
Isaiah 9:20 - And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.
Isaiah 49:26 -And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.
Micah 3:3 - Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.
2 Sam 23:17 - Saying: The Lord be merciful to me, that I may not do this: shall I drink the blood of these men that went, and the peril of their lives? therefore he would not drink. These things did these three mighty men.
So, if Jesus were speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then what Our Lord really means was “whoever persecutes and assaults Me will have eternal life.” Which, makes nonsense of the passage.
It does not make sense and they could not except this teaching that is why they walked away
You have not answered me how many people have left your Chruch because they had to symboliclly eat his flesh?
Why when asked by them did Jesus not just tell them what he was tring to convey in a simlilar understanding he did it every other time look at the parables
Why did he repeat himself but the second time using such a stronger word for eat such as naw or chew? (check out the greek) was he tring to confuse them? why use such language? why did the deciples travel so long to follow this man again read the Chapter these people traveled far but yet walk away at a symbolic speach I wonder why they did not walk away from im a vine im a door? Why do you dissagree with the Chruch fathers who studied under the apostles? Why is there no church father who believe as you?
T
Teflon93
Guest
I’m still waiting on that evidence. When will it be coming?
T
Teflon93
Guest
Rather, we must believe that Christ can change blood into wine as he changed water into wine, and flesh into bread as he changed nothing into loaves and fishes to feed 5,000, and we must believe that Christ can become flesh and blood.
As Christians believe all these things, your problem is…?
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
My first comment is that you have it backwards. Catholics do not believe Jeus is literally a loaf of Bread. We believe that Christ makes himself real and present under the appearance of bread and wine. The “bread” is not there, only the appearance of the bread is there. Same with the wine.
Second point is that one must carefully read the passages of scripture to determine when Christ is speaking literally, and when He is using an analogy or figure of speech. When he called himself the doorway or the vine, there was no confusion among those who were listening. They understood the metaphor, as does the Church. But in the context of John 6, something more than a metaphor is being asserted. When asked to clarify, Christ reasserts again and again that He is the bread of life; that we are to eat his flesh (and drink His blood). And when confronted with this difficule questions, the Apostles trust in Christ to show them how this can be. Others, who find it a difficult teaching, fall away from the Lord. If Christ had meant this only symbolically, then he did a poor job of teaching His flock. Since, of course, He was teaching a hard truth, He did not tell His followers that he was only speaking symbolically.
It is a hard teaching, but the meaning is manifested at the Last Supper, when Christ presented His body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.
One other note: You state that Catholics believe Jesus flesh and blood is “literally” present. That is incorrect. His presence in the Eucharist is real and substantive, but not literal (i.e. physical). The physical aspects remain those of bread. The literal manifestation of flesh and blood does not take place (except in the context of some purported Eucharistic Miracles.)
Peace,
-Robert
M
Mickey
Guest
Excellent post.
T
Teflon93
Guest
I’ll second Mickey’s comment and raise you ECF belief in the Eucharist. These were men who understood metaphor, and they viewed the Eucharistic teaching of John 6 in literal and not metaphorical terms—we are to eat the bread of life, or we have no life within us.
St Paul clearly agreed, as his remarks cautioning against approaching the Eucharist unworthily in 1 Cor 11 amply demonstrate.
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
Again, it is not whether or not Christ can do this, but whether or not He does do this.
The problem is that it contradicts the Bible.
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
I see. So then, Jesus just looks like a loaf of bread.
First of all, there is no analogy in scripture.
Second, I agree. Contextual clues do tell us when He is speaking metaphorically. For instance, when the Bible says that Jesus holds up a piece of bread and says, “this bread is my body”, obviously, we know that He is speaking metaphorically because we know that men are not made out of bread and we know that Jesus’ body was right there in front of them, so if He meant His literal body, He would not have held up a piece of bread, but pointed to His own body.
I disagree. That some confused men chose to believe that He was speaking of His literal body (and how they could believe that the same God who had so vehemently condemned cannibalism in the Old Testament was now commanding them to do it, I have no idea) does not mean that Jesus was a poor teacher.
He didn’t need to tell them. Jesus knew they weren’t idiots who had to have such an obvious thing explained to them.
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
The Bible does say that the carnal man cannot discern spiritual things, so I’ve got to believe that the problem isn’t with the Bible’s explanation, but with your discernment.
M
Mickey
Guest
I said nothing of the Bible’s explanation. I said it was your odd and innovative interpretation.
M
Mickey
Guest
The only thing being contradicted is your strange and relatively new interpretations.
T
Teflon93
Guest
He does. Indeed, he demonstrates that he does in John 6 just prior to his Eucharistic teaching:
1: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2: And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3: And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4: And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5: When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6: And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7: Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8: One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,
9: There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10: And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11: And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12: When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13: Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14: Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
There’s a reason why this incident is related at the beginning of John 6, a reason made apparent at the climax of the chapter. Christ demonstrates his power to do this, and then his will to do it forevermore through the Eucharist.
No, the problem is that it contradicts the false tradition you were handed. You can read John 6 with your own eyes and see what it plainly says; you then superimpose your tradition over it.
The ECFs did not do this; they believed in the Eucharist, practiced the Mass, and often died for so doing, as the passages I have posted from their writings demonstrate. Look it up yourself.
Indeed, how could the pagans and Jews have claimed early Christians to be cannibals if they did not believe and practice the Eucharist?
M
Mach1Man
Guest
So, are you saying that Jesus was not a man?
Was Christ’s body glorified at the last supper?
This is from dictionary.com
- the eating of human flesh by another human being.
- the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
- the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
- the act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock.
I thought you said that cannibalism was the eating of dead flesh. Is the milk of a Mother dead?
The many left him because they thought he was talking about cannibalism. They didn’t understand that he was talking Spiritually, just like when he said we must be born again in John chapter 3.
T
Thing
Guest
Yes, they all knew what He was talking about and they all left Him, and being God, He knew also what they were thinking, but He did not correct them, and they all left Him and walked with Him no more.
Many times He explains HImself in different ways in parables to those who do not understand or who mistake what He says, but not this time, He repeats many times, they must eat His flesh, until finally the last of them departs in disbelief.
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
Which part of this passage tells us that Jesus turned Himself into a loaf of bread or, in this case, a fish?
No, I’m not talking about anybody’s tradition.
I’m talking about what the Bible says.
Don’t look at me. You’re the one claiming that this passage tells us that Jesus turned Himself into a loaf of bread.
Honestly? I don’t care. We don’t get our doctrine from what other men do.
Probably because some misguided people told them that Christianity teaches that they’re eating the literal flesh of Christ.
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
First of all, I never offered an interpretation.
Second, I don’t believe that the orthodox Christian teaching on this doctrine is “strange” or “new” at all.
Third, assuming that we are talking about my “interpretation”, if you’re going to claim that my interpretation is wrong, then you take on the responsibility of showing me how my interpretation is wrong and why your interpretation is correct.
You refuse to do so.
- Status