Catholics Have it Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter elvisman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elvisman

Guest
This is split off the thread, “Is this really what the Catholic Church teaches?” Per HISALONE, I have started a new thread.

To HISALONE: I will paste my last post on the previous thread:
You still haven’t answered my question. Oh, you’ve dodged it pretty well, but it remains unanswered. All you did was copy and paste the passage.

**My question was: Can you please show me – with Scripture verses – where Jesus wasn’t talking about his flesh and blood? Can you show me where it says he was speaking metaphorically?
**
**This is the only time in **ALL of the Gospels that Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. When pressed, Jesus usually explained what he meant when speaking metaphorically. Not this time. WHY? Because he was serious.

The Protestant position on John 6 has always been based on verse 63. But, what does he say right before this in verse 62? He says:
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

Was his ascension a metaphor? Was his resurrection merely a symbol? What about his death? Was it just a parable?

The revelation of Jesus’ giving us his flesh and blood is INDEED spiritual. It is also LITERAL. Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual – also literal. His ascension was spiritual – also literal.

The Protestant position goes over the edge by expecting us to believe that Jesus tells his disciples the following (paraphrased):
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. **
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Oh, and by the way, this is all just spiritual, so don’t get bent out of shape!”
**No. Jesus says, **“Does this shock you?”

Do you recall what Jesus did when he cured the blind man? He made mud from some dirt and his saliva and rubbed it in the blind man’s eyes? Did he HAVE to do this to cure him? Couldn’t he have just said some words? After all, he IS God. Jesus used tangible means because, being God, he is smart enough to realize that we are humans in need of tangible means to relate. All through the Old Testament, God used tangible means to reveal himself to his people.

Being Protestant, you reject Tradition as being on par with Scripture. Why? You need something tangible – written down – even thought St. Paul CLEARLY states in 2 Thess. 3:15:
**Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

I eagerly await your ANSWER to my earlier question.
 
elvisman said:
**
You still haven’t answered my question. Oh, you’ve dodged it pretty well, but it remains unanswered**. All you did was copy and paste the passage.

My question was: Can you please show me – with Scripture verses – where Jesus wasn’t talking about his flesh and blood? Can you show me where it says he was speaking metaphorically?

**This is the only time in **ALL of the Gospels that Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. When pressed, Jesus usually explained what he meant when speaking metaphorically. Not this time. WHY? Because he was serious.

**The Protestant position on **John 6 has always been based on verse 63. But, what does he say right before this in verse 62? He says:
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

**Was his ascension a **metaphor? Was his resurrection merely a symbol? What about his death? Was it just a parable?

**The revelation of Jesus’ giving us his flesh and blood is **INDEED spiritual. It is also LITERAL. Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual – also literal. His ascension was spiritual – also literal.

The Protestant position goes over the edge by expecting us to believe that Jesus tells his disciples the following (paraphrased):
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.*** Oh, and by the way, this is all just spiritual***, so don’t get bent out of shape!”
**No. Jesus says, **“Does this shock you?”

**Do you recall what Jesus did when he cured the **blind man? He made mud from some dirt and his saliva and rubbed it in the blind man’s eyes? Did he HAVE to do this to cure him? Couldn’t he have just said some words? After all, he IS God. Jesus used tangible means because, being God, he is smart enough to realize that we are humans in need of tangible means to relate. All through the Old Testament, God used tangible means to reveal himself to his people.

**Being Protestant, you reject Tradition as being on par with Scripture. Why? You need something **tangible – written down – even thought St. Paul CLEARLY states in 2 Thess. 3:15:
***Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the ***traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

I eagerly await your ANSWER to my earlier question.

What I did in my previous post was to connect all the dots In John 6, to draw a picture. Yet sadly you still do not see.
You are correct that verse 63 is the diffenitive verse.** Jesus says it is his words that gives life** They give life just as a seed gives life. His words (seed) are planted within us where our faith captures them as the soil captures the seed. It is this seed of faith that grows into eternal life.
Verse 62 Is the wake up call to His point of the whole teaching.
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”
Where was He before? In heaven, remember He came down from heaven to be our food.
Who sees Him where He was before?
Those that believe. After Jesus resurrected did He go to non believers? Those that dont believe in the second death will they see Jesus where He was before? NO
Does the flesh profit the spirit Jesus says emphatically NO.
All of the prohibitions against drinking blood, all of the prohibitions against worshipping idols made by human hands (bread), the reminders here in this chapter and in others that it is spirit that matters not flesh. Unless one is predisposed in believing that Christ meant His physical flesh and His physical blood the answer to your riddle is more than obvious.
Click to expand...
 
Hisalone said:
What I did in my previous post was to connect all the dots In John 6, to draw a picture. Yet sadly you still do not see.
You are correct that verse 63 is the diffenitive verse.** Jesus says it is his words that gives life** They give life just as a seed gives life. His words (seed) are planted within us where our faith captures them as the soil captures the seed. It is this seed of faith that grows into eternal life.
Verse 62 Is the wake up call to His point of the whole teaching.
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”
Where was He before? In heaven, remember He came down from heaven to be our food.
Who sees Him where He was before?
Those that believe. After Jesus resurrected did He go to non believers? Those that dont believe in the second death will they see Jesus where He was before? NO
Does the flesh profit the spirit Jesus says emphatically NO.
All of the prohibitions against drinking blood, all of the prohibitions against worshipping idols made by human hands (bread), the reminders here in this chapter and in others that it is spirit that matters not flesh. Unless one is predisposed in believing that Christ meant His physical flesh and His physical blood the answer to your riddle is more than obvious.
Click to expand...
**I KNEW you were going to say that! 👍 **
**Why do you suppose there was a prohibition against drinking blood in the Old Testament? I’ll tell you why. **Leviticus 17:14 states: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood."

Do you also believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing? Yours doesn’t. Mine doesn’t. But, Jesus’ flesh and blood profits EVERYTHING. It profits for us, salvation via his death on the cross. That is blasphemous.

As I stated before - Jesus didn’t say, "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink and, oh, by the way my flesh profits nothing!" Our flesh, the world, our own way profits us nothing. We, by ourselves cannot get to heaven. We can’t merit salvation by ourselves. Jesus, however, profits us EVERYTHING.

THAT is what John 6:63 is all about.
 
Can we please STOP: with all the colors. There is a reason why no one else does this in any written communication. It makes the post impossible to read. Also, posts in all boldface seem like shouting.

Please normal fonts please. If you have trouble reading it, use a larger font.

Please, stop it with changing the colors. If you are trying to put particular emphasis on words or thoughts, use bold or italics or combinations. Colors don’t work.
 
rpp said:
Can we please STOP: with all the colors. There is a reason why no one else does this in any written communication. It makes the post impossible to read. Also, posts in all boldface seem like shouting.

Please normal fonts please. If you have trouble reading it, use a larger font.

Please, stop it with changing the colors. If you are trying to put particular emphasis on words or thoughts, use bold or italics or combinations. Colors don’t work.
Click to expand...
No.
**If it bothers you - go to another thread.😉 **
 
elvisman, The colors help me to understand what you’re emphasizing and I appreciate the points you make.
 
hi all since Jesus’s reserection is His flesh the exact same
flesh He was born with?i think it is not exactly the same because now it is glorified,totally completely one with the spirit.it is still His flesh but it is now spiritual flesh and that is what we eat at the Eucharist.substance and non-substance now made one in Christ risen.btw i have to agree with rpp on the colour issue some of us may not have the greatest eyes any more.
 
elvisman said:
**I KNEW **you were going to say that! 👍
**Why do you suppose there was a prohibition against drinking blood in the Old Testament? I’ll tell you why. **Leviticus 17:14 states: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood."

Do you also believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing? Yours doesn’t. Mine doesn’t. But, Jesus’ flesh and blood profits EVERYTHING. It profits for us, salvation via his death on the cross. That is blasphemous.

As I stated before - Jesus didn’t say, "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink and, oh, by the way my flesh profits nothing!" Our flesh, the world, our own way profits us nothing. We, by ourselves cannot get to heaven. We can’t merit salvation by ourselves. Jesus, however, profits us EVERYTHING.

THAT is what John 6:63 is all about.
Click to expand...
That is only a part of the why of the prohibition for drinking blood.
We would say that Jesus is wholly God and wholly human. Is God flesh and blood?
No
Jesus’ human nature was in His flesh was in His blood.
The divine nature in His Spirit in His soul.
The Flesh of Jesus that He gave up on the cross, and the blood He shed profits those that believe. It is through faith by believing that we eat and we drink this profit.
 
Whenever the disciples did not understand something, they either asked for an explanation or Jesus volunteered the explanation. We do not see that happening in John 6. If we give John 6 a symbolic meaning:
Code: 
*John 6:53-55 Jesus therefore said unto them, Most assuredly, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. *
Problem #1 - How do we symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood? If we symbolically eat his body and drink his blood by eating bread and grape juice will we have eternal life? Are we guaranteed heaven by eating bread and drinking grape juice?

Problem #2 - In v 60, why is this a hard saying if it is symbolic? If Jesus was explaining in v63 that his words were symbolic, why did they leave him in v66? Why would they consider it such a hard saying that they walked away from Jesus over it if it is symbolic? How many people today leave a church over the idea of having to eat a small piece of bread and drink some grape juice?? It is not a “hard saying” to assent to symbolism. These disciples who walked away in v66 SAW the feeding of the multitudes just the day before Jesus said this! They also had just seen Him walk on the water! Do you think after they had seen these miracles that they would walk away over having to symbolically eat His Body and Blood? They had also seen Jesus turn water to wine, heal the sick, cast out demons - they had even healed the sick and cast out demons themselves - and they walked away from Jesus because they had to symbolically eat His flesh and drink His blood???
Why didn’t Jesus clear up the misunderstanding if he was speaking symbolically like he had at other times? If all the people who heard Jesus speak these words took Him literally, why don’t people today, 2000 years later, believe that His words were symbolic? Because it IS a hard teaching! They reject the real meaning of Jesus’ words just like the Jews and many disciples rejected the real meaning of His words 2000 years ago - because is IS a hard teaching.
Code: 
*John 6:61-62 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? 62 [What] then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? *
Here Jesus tells us that the miracle of whatever he means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood is something GREATER than the manna from Heaven and more miraculous than His ascension into Heaven! Is eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice more miraculous than Jesus ascending into Heaven on a cloud of Heaven? Is the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually being changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ a greater miracle than the manna in the desert, or His ascension? Yes!

An interpretation which renders Jesus’ words symbolic just doesn’t make any sense. Everyone took Jesus literally because He was speaking literally.
  • John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: **yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. **
    John 6:58b he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. *
  • Was the flesh that Jesus gave for the world real or symbolic?
  • Was Jesus’ death on the cross real or symbolic? Was the flesh on the cross real or symbolic?
  • Was the blood He poured out for us on the cross real or symbolic?
If you believe Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 or at the Last Supper, then the conclusion you MUST come to is that Jesus did not REALLY die on the cross, but it was a symbolic representation of it. You cannot have it both ways.
 
Hisalone said:
That is only a part of the why of the prohibition for drinking blood.
We would say that Jesus is wholly God and wholly human. Is God flesh and blood?
Yes. Jesus is God, therefore God is flesh and blood.
Jesus’ human nature was in His flesh was in His blood.
The divine nature in His Spirit in His soul.
Not really. You cannot seperate Jesus. He is God in his flesh and blood and he is human in flesh and blood. He is God in Spirit and human in Spirit.
The Flesh of Jesus that He gave up on the cross, and the blood He shed profits those that believe. It is through faith by believing that we eat and we drink this profit.
Click to expand...
We eat and drink his body, blood, spirit and divinity. We have Christ in his entirity in the Euchrist, not a mere promise. The living God becomes one with us when we recieve the Euchrist. He dwells in us and we dwell in him.
 
fbl9 said:
hi all since Jesus’s reserection is His flesh the exact same
flesh He was born with?i think it is not exactly the same because now it is glorified,totally completely one with the spirit.it is still His flesh but it is now spiritual flesh and that is what we eat at the Eucharist.substance and non-substance now made one in Christ risen.btw i have to agree with rpp on the colour issue some of us may not have the greatest eyes any more.
Click to expand...
**Because you were nice about it - I promise I will try to tone down the colors.👍 It’s hard to break old habits.😉 **
**I just don’t appreciate these ridiculously vitrioloc assaults about it by some people. **
If somebody has a problem with fonts, size, boldness, colors or my shoe size - send me a PM.
Let’s stick to the subject of the thread.
 
Since Christ Himself has said, “This is My Body” who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?
– St. Cyril of Jerusalem
 
Hisalone said:
That is only a part of the why of the prohibition for drinking blood.
We would say that Jesus is wholly God and wholly human. Is God flesh and blood?
No
Jesus’ human nature was in His flesh was in His blood.
The divine nature in His Spirit in His soul.
The Flesh of Jesus that He gave up on the cross, and the blood He shed profits those that believe. It is through faith by believing that we eat and we drink this profit.
Click to expand...
**Would you mind telling me what the other part of the prohibition is? You seem to think that Jesus was split in two. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man It’s called the Hypostatic Union. **

Is God flesh and blood? You say “No”, but the answer is a resounding, “YES!!” YES - in the person of Jesus - the 2nd Person in the Holy Trinity. We do not claim that the Eucharist is God the Father.

Read Gosh_Catholic and Pixie Dust’s posts above.
And, again - please show me where this is merely symbolic.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
Problem #1 - How do we symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood? If we symbolically eat his body and drink his blood by eating bread and grape juice will we have eternal life? Are we guaranteed heaven by eating bread and drinking grape juice?

Problem #2 - In v 60, why is this a hard saying if it is symbolic? If Jesus was explaining in v63 that his words were symbolic, why did they leave him in v66? Why would they consider it such a hard saying that they walked away from Jesus over it if it is symbolic? How many people today leave a church over the idea of having to eat a small piece of bread and drink some grape juice?? It is not a “hard saying” to assent to symbolism. These disciples who walked away in v66 SAW the feeding of the multitudes just the day before Jesus said this! They also had just seen Him walk on the water! Do you think after they had seen these miracles that they would walk away over having to symbolically eat His Body and Blood? They had also seen Jesus turn water to wine, heal the sick, cast out demons - they had even healed the sick and cast out demons themselves - and they walked away from Jesus because they had to symbolically eat His flesh and drink His blood???
Why didn’t Jesus clear up the misunderstanding if he was speaking symbolically like he had at other times? If all the people who heard Jesus speak these words took Him literally, why don’t people today, 2000 years later, believe that His words were symbolic? Because it IS a hard teaching! They reject the real meaning of Jesus’ words just like the Jews and many disciples rejected the real meaning of His words 2000 years ago - because is IS a hard teaching.
Code: 
*John 6:61-62 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? 62 [What] then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? *
Here Jesus tells us that the miracle of whatever he means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood is something GREATER than the manna from Heaven and more miraculous than His ascension into Heaven! Is eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice more miraculous than Jesus ascending into Heaven on a cloud of Heaven? Is the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually being changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ a greater miracle than the manna in the desert, or His ascension? Yes!

An interpretation which renders Jesus’ words symbolic just doesn’t make any sense. Everyone took Jesus literally because He was speaking literally.
  • John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: **yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. ***
    John 6:58b he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
  • Was the flesh that Jesus gave for the world real or symbolic?
  • Was Jesus’ death on the cross real or symbolic? Was the flesh on the cross real or symbolic?
  • Was the blood He poured out for us on the cross real or symbolic?
If you believe Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 or at the Last Supper, then the conclusion you MUST come to is that Jesus did not REALLY die on the cross, but it was a symbolic representation of it. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I have not used the word symbolic—purposely.
Symbolic is not adequate in being discriptive.
We do not symbolically drink—We sprititually drink.
How do we spiritually drink ----We drink by faith.

What is lost in this thread is what was said before on the other thread is lost.
Some of what is lost is that those that left were exposed by Jesus that they were there to
  1. see signs v26
  2. to be given a free lunch
Jesus was clear in v 63

Jesus makes it clear what he means to have everlasting life
John 3:
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but F15 have eternal life.

The greatest miracle is Jesus’death —were everyone of our sins died.
Resurrection where everyone who believes will be resurrected to new life.
 
Goth_Catholic said:
We eat and drink his body, blood, spirit and divinity. We have Christ in his entirity in the Euchrist, not a mere promise. The living God becomes one with us when we recieve the Euchrist. He dwells in us and we dwell in him.
Click to expand...
God does not dwell in idols formed by human hands,
 
Lampo said:
Since Christ Himself has said, “This is My Body” who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?
– St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Click to expand...
Since Christ Himself said Unless you are born again who shall dare to doubt we must be rebirthed
Since Christ Himself said I am the door who shall dare to doubt that He is the door
Since Christ Himself said I am the light…
who shall dare to doubt that He is a light
since Christ Himself said I am the true vine who shall dare to doubt that He is a vine…
 
Hisalone,
Perhaps it would be helpful to look at what those people closest to the disciples thought about the matter.

(Forgive me if this retreads some ground that’s already been covered on this thread. I’ve taken this from a post of mine from a couple of months ago, but I thought it was very applicable:)

Catholics believe that Jesus is not just symbolically present in Communion, but actually physically present. You may be interested to note that we are not the only denomination that holds to this view. In fact, about 2/3 of ALL Christians believe this to be true, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans. In order to prove the Real Presence, I think it’s essential to look at both what the Bible says and what has historically been true. After all, if it is a corruption, it should be fairly easy to track down at what point it entered into Catholic belief. Looking at what people believed in the very early church would be critical to your argument that it is false.

So, I’m going to begin to answer the question from the historical perspective, and then go back and deal with the Biblical issues. I realize that it will be very important to back up the claim with what’s taught in the Bible, since it is an inspired source. BUT, if we want to know how to correctly interpret that source, we need to see what the apostles and the followers of the apostles thought about how it should be interpreted. If it matters, I’m a professional historian at a small private college in the South, although my area of expertise is Latin America, not the Catholic Church or theology. (Just so you know that my research has some credibility.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top