R
Rightlydivide
Guest
That is not why they left. Read it again. They do not leave at that time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
paul_c
Guest
Sure they did. Here is the text: John 6: 48- 66That is not why they left. Read it again. They do not leave at that time.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “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.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No they did not.
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Do you see when they left; after his explaination. You can assert they left after verse 56 but that is not what it says. He is clearly showing the absurdity of a literal understanding and some are still thinking this way…2000 years later.
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Do you see when they left; after his explaination. You can assert they left after verse 56 but that is not what it says. He is clearly showing the absurdity of a literal understanding and some are still thinking this way…2000 years later.
P
paul_c
Guest
. Why do you truncate verses 60 and 61?No they did not.
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Do you see when they left; after his explaination. You can assert they left after verse 56 but that is not what it says. He is clearly showing the absurdity of a literal understanding and some are still thinking this way…2000 years later.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
They were murmuring that they could not accept his teaching on the eucharist in verse 60. That is what drove them away. For you to be right, he would have had to say something even more radical in lines 62-65 to drive them away. What would that be? All that he is describing in these lines are (62 ) that he will ascend to where he was before , (63) that the spirit gives life and (64) some will not beleive and (65) no one can come to him except those granted by the father. These are describing his role as Messiah and what attracted them to him in the first place, These statements would not have driven them away.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
What he states clearly is his pre-existence but you miss the point of John 6. The point of John 6 is that eating his flesh is synonymous with believing in him. But not like you view it! Its better and deeper than that. You quoted it yourself when Christ taught that eating his flesh gives eternal life. No Catholic teaches that the Eucharist gives eternal life. It is belief in Christ and who he is. That is the teaching of John 6. They leave because of the totality of his teaching about who he is and who he WAS but specifically the statement right before they left. That only because of his Father can anyone come to him. The magnitude of this statement pales in comparison to anything said. The entire passage is about eternal life, pre-existence, and ultimately belief in who he said he was. Disagree if you will but read it again. Your view makes the rest of what he said irrelevent. The theme of his teachings was not to eat a host that does not physically change but only the accidents, which is only a philosophical construct anyway or Orthodoxy and other apostolic Christians would embrace it, and then everyone has eternal life. It elevates the Eucharist beyond anything Catholics believe if I insert that understanding of the passage.. Why do you truncate verses 60 and 61?
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
They were murmuring that they could not accept his teaching on the eucharist in verse 60. That is what drove them away. For you to be right, he would have had to say something even more radical in lines 62-65 to drive them away. What would that be? All that he is describing in these lines are (62 ) that he will ascend to where he was before , (63) that the spirit gives life and (64) some will not beleive and (65) no one can come to him except those granted by the father. These are describing his role as Messiah and what attracted them to him in the first place, These statements would not have driven them away.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The Didache is catechetical instructions for what the laity are to do, not the Odo for the liturgy nor is it a theological explanation nor a sacramenterium.It says to give thanks because there is no turning it into anything. This is what they said. There is no inidication that anything else was said. Only an anchronistic understanding would demand that something should be added.
P
paul_c
Guest
What do you mean no Catholic beleives that the eucharist leads to eternal life. Its right there in vs 53- 53. However, its not the only requirement. But it is one requirement.What he states clearly is his pre-existence but you miss the point of John 6. The point of John 6 is that eating his flesh is synonymous with believing in him. But not like you view it! Its better and deeper than that. You quoted it yourself when Christ taught that eating his flesh gives eternal life. No Catholic teaches that the Eucharist gives eternal life. It is belief in Christ and who he is. That is the teaching of John 6. They leave because of the totality of his teaching about who he is and who he WAS but specifically the statement right before they left. That only because of his Father can anyone come to him. The magnitude of this statement pales in comparison to anything said. The entire passage is about eternal life, pre-existence, and ultimately belief in who he said he was. Disagree if you will but read it again. Your view makes the rest of what he said irrelevent. The theme of his teachings was not to eat a host that does not physically change but only the accidents, which is only a philosophical construct anyway or Orthodoxy and other apostolic Christians would embrace it, and then everyone has eternal life. It elevates the Eucharist beyond anything Catholics believe if I insert that understanding of the passage.
53 Jesus said to them, "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.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
You deny scripture when you deny the real presence and the graces that abound in the eucharist. And John 6 is not the only scriptural reference either. Its covered in the last supper accounts in the other three gospels and its covered in 1Corinthians 11 by St. Paul
And by the way, the orthodox do embrace the real presence.
M
milkbar
Guest
As do many Protestants. I don’t know figures, but I feel comfortable asserting the vast majority of Christians in the world believe in the Real Presence, even if not exactly as Catholics do. Those who believe communion is merely symbolic are in the minority, and it’s a fairly new opinion as history goes.What do you mean no Catholic beleives that the eucharist leads to eternal life. Its right there in vs 53- 53. However, its not the only requirement. But it is one requirement.
53 Jesus said to them, "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.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
You deny scripture when you deny the real presence and the graces that abound in the eucharist. And John 6 is not the only scriptural reference either. Its covered in the last supper accounts in the other three gospels and its covered in 1Corinthians 11 by St. Paul
And by the way, the orthodox do embrace the real presence.
T
twf
Guest
RightlyDivided: in verse 51 Jesus clearly says that the ‘bread’ of this passage, which we must eat, is his flesh which he will give for the world. If your reading of this passage is correct, for the sake of consistency, we must understand this to be symbolic as well. Did Christ literally die? According to you the flesh avails nothing. The sinful fleshly nature of man is incapable of accepting this great mystery without grace, that’s what Jesus meant. The flesh of Christ avails much! We receive Christ body, blood, soul and divinity a d by doing so become more like him. We have put on Christ in baptism (Romans 6) and are nourished in the Christian life by the Lord Himself. Scripture has many references to the Eucharistic sacrifice…take a look here:scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
‘And they discerned the Lord in the breaking of the bread…’ (see Luke 24:30-35)
‘And they discerned the Lord in the breaking of the bread…’ (see Luke 24:30-35)
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Saying that eating his flesh and blood means *believing *in Christ has no weight when one considers Christ’s use of words as understood by his contemporaries:
[/INDENT]**The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” **
[/INDENT]**The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” **
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
By your logic, the Trinity doesn’t exist because the term “Trinity” wasn’t used in the first century.Priest?? In the 1st century?? No, the church was still using the correct terms in the 1st century.
The English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros.
E
Evan
Guest
To respond to the original question.The Baptist with whom I’m currently having discussions, threw this one out at me. I’m not sure how to answer. It’s never occurred to me. I have to wonder about his question (not that I doubt anything, including the Eucharist and its definition of the Real Presence as transubstantiation)…it’s just that I never thought of this. Does the priest HAVE to state Jesus’ words, precisely, as they do now…for the consecration to actually take place? And what about this (what seems to be a different prayer)? Can anyone help me on this one? Here’s the baptist’s statement:
"The consecration seen in the Didache are not the words of Christ. Here is the consecration as seen in the Didache:
“Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks in this way. First for the cup; “We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou madest known to us through thy servant Jesus. To thee be the glory for … See Moreever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills, and was gathered together and made one, so let thy Church be gathered together into thy kingdom from the ends of the earth; for thine is the glory and the power through Christ Jesus forever.”
So if this is the consecration, then how can there be transubstantiation?
No the priest does not have to quote Christ at the Last Supper. In the various Church rites there are several (15+ I think) Eucharistic prayers. All of them have the intention of doing what Christ did, but not all quote him exactly. In the Latin Rite (of which most of us are) the word from the bible are used so you will always here them at mass in the Latin Rite. The Church recognizes that the words are not magical and it is the intent of the Priest, the proper matter, and the proper intention that are the most significant. The words can be in any language, and they must follow one of the prescribed Eucharistic prayers proper to the Rite of the officiating priest.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No its not. Where did you read that lie or misinformed person?The English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros.
ἱερεύς=priest hierus
presbyter- πρεσβύτερος presbyteros
Terminology
Since the word “presbyter” came to be synonymous with the idea of a priest, it is important to understand at the outset, that the sacerdotal function—including leading prayer, offering of sacrifices, and the conducting of other sacred rituals—was originally described by terms like sacerdos in Latin, iereus in Greek, kohen in Hebrew. When the word “priest” appears in the New Testament, the usual word for it in Greek is iereus, and not presbyteros. Only considerably later, when presbyters took on the role of sacerdos/iereus, did the term presbyter evolve into “priest” as we use the word today. Etymologically, however, priest and presbyter are closely connected.
newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Presbyter
P
paul_c
Guest
The way it works is this. The early christians called their ordained priests, presbyters to differentiate them from the old testament Jewish priests, who were from the tribe of Levi. Over time, the term presbyters was translated as priests in english. and the same term was used for old testament priests as well.No its not. Where did you read that lie or misinformed person?
ἱερεύς=priest hierus
presbyter- πρεσβύτερος presbyteros
Terminology
Since the word “presbyter” came to be synonymous with the idea of a priest, it is important to understand at the outset, that the sacerdotal function—including leading prayer, offering of sacrifices, and the conducting of other sacred rituals—was originally described by terms like sacerdos in Latin, iereus in Greek, kohen in Hebrew. When the word “priest” appears in the New Testament, the usual word for it in Greek is iereus, and not presbyteros. Only considerably later, when presbyters took on the role of sacerdos/iereus, did the term presbyter evolve into “priest” as we use the word today. Etymologically, however, priest and presbyter are closely connected.
newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Presbyter
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Absurd. You do not know they did it for that reason. Prove that.The way it works is this. The early christians called their ordained priests, presbyters to differentiate them from the old testament Jewish priests,
Over time the term presbyters was translated as priests in English…Really?Over time, the term presbyters was translated as priests in english. and the same term was used for old testament priests as well.
So this transition occured…was in when they were speaking modern English or was it an Anglo-Saxon thing?
You may be a linguistics expert Paul. Or you may be pulling random theories out of thin air. I would like to know.
O
OmegaSupreme
Guest
A sure-fire way of telling when someone is losing an argument is when they have to resort to debating terminology rather than their original point. But then again, it is kinda hard to argue against history.
P
paul_c
Guest
I’m not a linguistics expert, but I’m also not pulling this out of thin air:Absurd. You do not know they did it for that reason. Prove that.
Over time the term presbyters was translated as priests in English…Really?
So this transition occured…was in when they were speaking modern English or was it an Anglo-Saxon thing?
You may be a linguistics expert Paul. Or you may be pulling random theories out of thin air. I would like to know.
Here’s a link to an online etymology for the word priest that shows that it was derived from the word Presbyteros. you can google any number of etymologies and they all say this.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest
As for the point that the early Christian priests went by the name presbyteros rather than the greek term for priest used for the Levitical priesthood, I’ve read taht many times although I can’t put my finger on a source right now. But consider this. The earliest Christians were Jews and they knew that their ordained priests were not the same as the levitical priests of the Jews, so they absolutely needed a different name. They chose presbyteros (elders). Why is this absurd.
P
paul_c
Guest
So lets get back on point. Rightlydivide, what proof do you have that the eucharist is not the real presence? You are arguing against scripture here. Why should we believe you ?A sure-fire way of telling when someone is losing an argument is when they have to resort to debating terminology rather than their original point. But then again, it is kinda hard to argue against history.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
You cannot disprove a real presence. If the accidents are the same, the substance changes according to transubstantiation. Substance being seperate from the accidents is a philosophical construct. You do not prove or disprove an ontological argument you simply assert an argument based upoon existing presuppositions.So lets get back on point. Rightlydivide, what proof do you have that the eucharist is not the real presence? You are arguing against scripture here. Why should we believe you ?
I can say that this substance does not exist; but really I can only assert that no physical senses can see it or determine it occured. That begs the question as to where this substance subsists? Where does this underlying reality actually exist? There is a great deal of truth that cannot be proved with the physical senses. However, in an attempt to quantify the spiritual work of God, Catholic understanding of the Eucharist enters a different realm than others who profess a belief in a real presence as you stated.
The Orthodox view does not attempt to explain by relies on the mystery of the change.
I am clearly not arguing against scripture. I am arguing against the dominant view of scripture. I am on the side of the road less traveled.
On a side note, whether you believe or do not believe that Christ exists in the host does not affect a person’s salvation; unless someone can convince me that scripture teaches otherwise. As such, I am not particularly passionate about the subject. I do also myself to get drawn in when I defend our interpretation.
P
paul_c
Guest
Well in John 6 Jesus says that unless you eat his body and drink his blood, you can not have eternal life. so it does effect someone’s salvation. Read the sequence in John 6 to validate what I am saying. By the way, its not necessary that you understand HOW the real presence is in the eucharist, it is only necessary that you believe it is .You cannot disprove a real presence. If the accidents are the same, the substance changes according to transubstantiation. Substance being seperate from the accidents is a philosophical construct. You do not prove or disprove an ontological argument you simply assert an argument based upoon existing presuppositions.
I can say that this substance does not exist; but really I can only assert that no physical senses can see it or determine it occured. That begs the question as to where this substance subsists? Where does this underlying reality actually exist? There is a great deal of truth that cannot be proved with the physical senses. However, in an attempt to quantify the spiritual work of God, Catholic understanding of the Eucharist enters a different realm than others who profess a belief in a real presence as you stated.
The Orthodox view does not attempt to explain by relies on the mystery of the change.
I am clearly not arguing against scripture. I am arguing against the dominant view of scripture. I am on the side of the road less traveled.
On a side note, whether you believe or do not believe that Christ exists in the host does not affect a person’s salvation; unless someone can convince me that scripture teaches otherwise. As such, I am not particularly passionate about the subject. I do also myself to get drawn in when I defend our interpretation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.