Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[Mickey]

You are talking yourself into one Gigantic Circle

That is the nature of the Zwinglian circular reasoning.

 

[ncgolf]

Jesus defines His terms in the passage. Coming, eating and drinking in the passage all have to do with God’s calling, and giving faith.

Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … the context must be you should put yourself as a first century Jew. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood but a Jew would.

In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea would have come to mind in point 2.

Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. Jesus’s command to eat the His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. We see this in John 6. The meeting of the Old and New Covenant’s and all its ramifications is about to take place, this will and does bring confusion to all of Judaism … the confusion necessary to establish Jesus as the New Covenant.

John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.

This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”

 

[Stephen168]

My concept of a tree includes a trunk, branches (all made of wood). My concept of a certain style of wooden stool includes a flat surface with three legs suitable for sitting upon (all made of wood). You have altered the wood so that it meets my concept of a wooden stool and no longer meets my concept of a tree. The trunk has been eliminated and a flat surface cut out of it. Branches are no longer emerging from a trunk, but rather three of them have been shaped into legs and fastened to the flat surface. (Note the molecules remain unchanged).

I understand your explanation of an answer but it would help if you answered the question first. Would I be sitting on a tree or a stool?

 

[Laborer]

Senses do not reveal reality, only shadows of it. Can finite senses percieve the infinite reality? Does color cease to exist because someone born blind cannot percieve it?
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Natural sensuallity cannot detect supernatural reality unless it’s revealed. etc etc etc.

 

[Radical]

Stephen168,

I understand your explanation of an answer but it would help if you answered the question first. Would I be sitting on a tree or a stool?

Well, if as I said, " it meets my concept of a wooden stool" it would seem that you would be sitting on what I understand to be a stool. Regarding your analogy(?), I note the thing on your land that you cut down had the accidents of a tree and the thing you ended up sitting upon had the accidents of a stool. What then is the relevancy of your question? So again, focusing on the bread, what has been eliminated so that bread is no longer really present?

 

[elijio]

Which if you truly believe it, is a confession of the doctrine of unmerited election. Amen.

And reminds me of something I read in a recent book by “Catholic” author Gary Wills in “What Jesus Meant”.

I don’t have the book in front of me so I’ll paraphrase, and this is the gist:

“If Jesus Christ has promised his followers that wherever two or more of them are gathered in His name, He will be there in their midst with them, what need do a couple of Anglicans praying in Great Britain have for the pope?”

By extension, since the Lord has promised to come to us what need do we have for priests to bring Him to us?

And further, if He is explicit in who He is, and what He is here for, and who He has come to save, and the relationships He has and will have with those whom the Father has given Him, why is the evidence of the establishment of a sacrificial priesthood (in any way akin to what is practiced by the Roman church) so vague?

There’s plenty of evidence that Christ is our priest and the once for all sacrifice, but I don’t see Him bestowing that dignity explicitly on His followers in the way Rome claims for its priests. In fact “priests” or “priesthood” in the New Testament when it doesn’t refer to the Jews and the high priest of the Jews, refers exclusively to Jesus as our High priest. The priesthood we see from the dark ages onward is something new, NOT envisioned by Our Lord and the words He gave us in Holy Scripture. (By the way “priest” in 1 Timothy 5 is better translated as “elder” as it is in the AV1611 King James Bible. In fact “elder” is the term Peter ascribes to himself in 1 Peter 5:1, no mention of “pope” or pontifex maximus (which I believe is what the Caesars chose to call themselves.)

How do you interpret this:

Matthew 16:19 (King James Version)

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ??

Peace.

 

[elijio]

I’m sorry and I know this is off topic too but I have another question. In my last post I asked someone to interpret Mattheww 16:19. As a returning Catholic, it was important for me to know who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. So, I thought I’d ask protestants this:

Where in this line of authority are you or your pastors?

List of Popes:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,
Well, if as I said, " it meets my concept of a wooden stool" it would seem that you would be sitting on what I understand to be a stool.

My concept of a tree includes a trunk, branches (all made of wood). My concept of a certain style of wooden stool includes a flat surface with three legs suitable for sitting upon (all made of wood). You have altered the wood so that it meets my concept of a wooden stool and no longer meets my concept of a tree. The trunk has been eliminated and a flat surface cut out of it. Branches are no longer emerging from a trunk, but rather three of them have been shaped into legs and fastened to the flat surface. (Note the molecules remain unchanged).

Yes, there is something about a tree that makes it a tree and not a flower. You use the word “concept”, we use the word substance. And there is the substance of a stool that makes it a stool and not a chair. Whether the stool is made of wood, metal, fabric, plastic; it is still a stool. In this case we are talking about a stool made of wood. Wood that shares many of its properties (accidents) with the tree; its texture, taste, etc. Yes, the molecules remained unchanged because they are the accidents of the tree and the stool. The molecules have nothing to do with the substance of a tree or a stool only the accidents.

If this is to be any sort of useful analogy in explaining RC transubstantiation, what specifically has been altered. What thing in the bread has been eliminated, altered or shaped so as to create a real** bodily **presence…

The substance changes.

Are the molecules of the bread the same as the molecules of the body, just as the molecules of the tree are the same as the molecules of the stool?
You say substance has changed and that it doesn’t include molecules. So what has changed? I have clearly told you what has changed going from the substance of a tree to the substance of a stool. Please reciprocate with a clear explanation of what has changed going from the substance of a loaf to the substance of a body.

The molecules are the accidents of a body, bread, tree, wine, blood, or stool. As the tree can become a stool with the same accidents. Bread can become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ with the same accidents.

 

[2John1vs3]

I’m sorry and I know this is off topic too but I have another question. In my last post I asked someone to interpret Mattheww 16:19. As a returning Catholic, it was important for me to know who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. So, I thought I’d ask protestants this:

Where in this line of authority are you or your pastors?

List of Popes:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Peace.

And where exactly do you find this “pope” thing in Holy Scripture. I see that “…there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5. And, I see that “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man” Jeremiah 17:5

And I ask you – since the church is the spotless bride of Christ – did you ever know of a virtuous man who would give his bride to another man to rule over her, or a virtuous bride who would submit to any but her Lord?

Do not diminish the Holy Spirit who governs the church of God’s elect, writing His law upon our hearts.

 

[pete_29]

And where exactly do you find this “pope” thing in Holy Scripture. I see that “…there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5. And, I see that “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man” Jeremiah 17:5

And I ask you – since the church is the spotless bride of Christ – did you ever know of a virtuous man who would give his bride to another man to rule over her, or a virtuous bride who would submit to any but her Lord?

Do not diminish the Holy Spirit who governs the church of God’s elect, writing His law upon our hearts.

I asked this question on another thread and never got an answer, maybe you can answer it . Why should I trust your interpretation of the Bible and not the Catholic Church’s?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yes, there is something about a tree that makes it a tree and not a flower. You use the word “concept”, we use the word substance. And there is the substance of a stool that makes it a stool and not a chair. Whether the stool is made of wood, metal, fabric, plastic; it is still a stool. In this case we are talking about a stool made of wood. Wood that shares many of its properties (accidents) with the tree; its texture, taste, etc. Yes, the molecules remained unchanged because they are the accidents of the tree and the stool. The molecules have nothing to do with the substance of a tree or a stool only the accidents.

The substance changes.

The molecules are the accidents of a body, bread, tree, wine, blood, or stool. As the tree can become a stool with the same accidents. Bread can become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ with the same accidents.

Using this explanation I can take a branch and without changing its “branch” accidents, use it a cane, changing its “branch” substance into “cane” substance without changing its accidents at all. Thus I have performed transubstantiation using your definition of substance.

Are you sure this is the way you want to define “substance” and “accidents”?

 

[2John1vs3]

I asked this question on another thread and never got an answer, maybe you can answer it . Why should I trust your interpretation of the Bible and not the Catholic Church’s?

God forbid any of us have any interpretation of the Bible other than what God himself desires for us to learn from it.

John 14:16-17 “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
John 14:26 “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”

Do you see that? The Holy Spirit of truth teaches God’s elect all things whatsoever Jesus has said to us. (It is wrong to say the Roman Catholic Church is that holy spirit, or the source and control of that spirit or the meter out of that spirit or the interpreter of that spirit, or that God has put an institutional church between Himself and his children.)

That being said, there’s a good bit of contortionism in the Catholic interpretation in order to make dogma work with scripture.

Now I won’t ask you to doubt anything but consider the following examples:
To protect the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity we read the following comment in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible on Matthew 13:55: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
*55 “His brethren”… These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour. *
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Do you see that “explanation”? The brethren belong to Mary Cleophas “the sister to our Blessed Lady”. Now the Blessed Mother’s name is Mary, and she has a sister named Mary? Two Marys in the same household? Or is Mary Cleophas a kinda-sister in the same way the brethren of the Lord (not to mention His sisters) are kinda-siblings? Now I don’t deny for example that Mary or Joseph had siblings who had families and might have died; orphaning the children so that Mary and Joseph took them in and they came to be seen as siblings to Jesus. Or other things might be so of which we have NO idea. But here’s the authoritarian Douay-Rheims Bible – which until VCII was the ONLY allowed English translation for Catholics – offering an “explanation” that strains credulity on its face.
And then there’s the matter of the Virgin Birth.
In order for Mary to remain ever virgin, Jesus could NOT enter the world via the birth canal because that would compromise her virginity in rupturing the hymen. (If you’ve visited the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC you might have seen the inscription over one of the entrances which quotes Ezechiel 44:2 “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it…” which supposedly in catholic lore refers to this miracle – but in Biblical truth has an entirely different meaning.)
In order to explain the Nativity without natural birth, the Chuch has (if you refer to the visions of Katherine Emmerich) come up with the concept of our Lord entering the world somewhat as a beam of light passes through a pane of glass.
Possibly, that may have been so. I believe in the miracle of a virgin being with child, and for God all things are possible. But it begs the question. Jesus was like us in ALL things but sin. So I’m inclined to believe He was born into this vale of tears in the same way as the rest of us and was not beamed in for the sake of Roman Catholic church dogmatic teaching on perpetual virginity.
Of course, the Christians don’t have to make a big deal out of all this because Mary was obviously a woman of tremendous virtue who found great favor with God. And living a married life, and having a family with her husband and performing all the duties of a Jewish matriarch in the first century doesn’t make her any less Blessed, and all generations do call her blessed. And this understanding of who she was and how she lived is more coherent with the Bible and Jewish law to which she was subject, and therefore just as blessed on its face as the Roman dogmatic view which in truth shows historical elements of syncretism with pagan sects – which were being absorbed into the visible church contemporaneously with the advent of the cult of Mary.

If you read the Bible and see the promises made by God to His elect, you should defend the treasure given to you.

 

[elijio]

And where exactly do you find this “pope” thing in Holy Scripture. I see that “…there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5. And, I see that “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man” Jeremiah 17:5

And I ask you – since the church is the spotless bride of Christ – did you ever know of a virtuous man who would give his bride to another man to rule over her, or a virtuous bride who would submit to any but her Lord?

Do not diminish the Holy Spirit who governs the church of God’s elect, writing His law upon our hearts.

Does it hurt to much to answer that question that you have no choice but to go back to your man-made tradition of sola scriptura which has no support in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition? Chapter and verses if you got them.

Your own man-made tradition fails to prove itself and your idea of sola scriptura; it is not found in the Bible!

Answer the question of where you get the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture anyway you choose and I’ll answer yours. I’m not letting you off the hook by allowing you to avoid the question or change the subject.

Peace.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have a challenge.

For anyone denying the Eucharist - please explain to me why the Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Church which schismed in the 4th or 5th century KNOWS the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of the Lord…
AND how the Eastern Orthodox also affirm the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus, who also schismed in 1054 AD?

AND how - if the Catholic Church - has it wrong - we could have possibly persuaded two Churches who are schismed from us to adopt the very same practice and beliefs?

Now when you can explain to me how the Church is wrong and her sister Churches - I would be very interested.

If you unsure of what a schism is, please ask.

Since the first schism occurred in around 400+ AD - and this was due to location and being cut off from the Church - AND yet they still uphold this as truth… HOW does anyone support the Catholic Church made this up?

 

[broski234]

Well I guess if Webster’s says it’s a mixture, it can’t be a substance :doh2:

Your emotion is cute! But the definition of a substance is:

“the real or essential part of anything; essence. solid or substantial quality, consistency, body; the real meaning; gist. A drug.”

 

[Radical]

Stephen168, I had said: * I have clearly told you what has changed going from the substance of a tree to the substance of a stool. Please reciprocate with a clear explanation of what has changed going from the substance of a loaf to the substance of a body.*
…and you replied:

The substance changes.

It seems that your answer is that no material thing changes in going from the substance of a loaf to the substance of a body. It seems that your position is that all the matter (even down to the molecules) that constitute bread is/are accidents. Earlier you had said:

Yes, there is something about a tree that makes it a tree and not a flower. You use the word “concept”, we use the word substance.

Your use of “substance” is interchangable with my use of “concept”? Substance in merely an “idea”? So when the substance changes from bread to body what is really happening is that your attitude changes so that what you believed was bread you now believe to be body (notwithstnding no material change has occurred)? Is that it?
.

The molecules are the accidents of a body, bread, tree, wine, blood, or stool.

How so? A loaf has accidents and substance in your view, correct? A piece of a loaf has accidents and substance in your view, correct? A very, very tiny piece of a loaf has accidents and substance in your view, correct? How is it then, that a molecule does not have accidents and substance but instead, is an accident of bread?

 

[Radical]

Now when you can explain to me how the Church is wrong and her sister Churches - I would be very interested…Since the first schism occurred in around 400+ AD - and this was due to location and being cut off from the Church - AND yet they still uphold this as truth… HOW does anyone support the Catholic Church made this up

This is rather easy to explain. (IMHO) those who believe in a real bodily presence are wrong in that they have misunderstood Jesus’s words…and this error emerged and gained wide acceptance before 400 AD.

 

[fatimadotorg4tr]

Popery is a man-made tradition born between the sixth century and the present century. Popery teaches that every one in Christendom (everyone pertaining to everyone)must obey what the pope declares to be his decree on any matter of faith and morals.

Here are some facts about it as well.

1. Jesus never taught popery.
2. The apostles never taught popery.
3. The disciples of the apostles never taught popery
4. The Early Church Fathers never taught popery.
5. When the Bible was Canonized and published at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. by Catholics, it didn’t have anything in it that taught popery.
6. Martin Luther’s King James Version 1600 taught sola fide ‘‘faith alone’’ when he added the word ‘‘alone’’ but he didn’t teach sola scriptura.
7. The Bible contains no chapter or verse in Sacred Scripture that supports popery.
8. Popery itself is practiced in seperate and individual ways but it has no history dating back to the first Christians or God’s Church.
9. Some who practice popery also practice Jesuitism which is a contradiction. Which is it? Popery or Jesuitism?
10. Your interpretation of Scripture is just that. Your interpretation. That’s all. No more and no less. It has no support in Scripture.
11. The dogmatic doctrine of infallibility of the pope on matters of faith and morals was issued under the most bizarre circumstances which suggest Almighty God was not well pleased with the pronouncement. (Find out what happened in St. Peter’s as the dogma was being read.)

If you disagree. Please show me the Biblical support for popery. Shouldn’t it be in the Bible? Chapters and verses? Please don’t use Peter as the rock. The “rock” is the profession he made (which is about the “cornerstone”, the Lord Jesus Christ; NOT the man. Please don’t use the keys of heaven and binding and loosing. There’s NO biblical evidence to suggest Peter used this statement of the Lord to become the “prince among the princes of the earth” or “God on earth” – which is what Leo XIII and Benedict XV (among others) chose to believe about themselves as Peter’s successors.

Peace.

I have misquoted this post to make a point for the Catholics.
Popery has been substituted for “Sola Scriptura” which is being defined for those who believe that the Bible is sufficient for finding the “keys to the kingdom” as something incorrect. I don’t see any evidence of “Go to mass on Sunday and you’ll be saved.”
I do see evidence that “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Proverbs 30:5 (And do you see the thing about putting your trust in Him, NOT a man pretending to stand-in for Him?)

 

[fatimadotorg4tr]

Does it hurt to much to answer that question that you have no choice but to go back to your man-made tradition of sola scriptura which has no support in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition? Chapter and verses if you got them.

Your own man-made tradition fails to prove itself and your idea of sola scriptura; it is not found in the Bible!

Answer the question of where you get the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture anyway you choose and I’ll answer yours. I’m not letting you off the hook by allowing you to avoid the question or change the subject.

Peace.

Does it hurt too much to answer that question that you have no choice but to go back to your man-made tradition of popery which has no support in Sacred Scripture or the tradition of God’s Elect? Chapter and verses if you got them.

Your own man-made tradition fails to prove itself and your idea of popery; it is not found in the Bible!

Answer the question of where the pope gets authority to say he is “God on earth” (as said Benedict XVI) and I’ll answer yours. I’m not letting you off the hook by allowing you to avoid the question or change the subject.

Every word of God is pure. Many self-described “god on earth” are demonstrably impure.

Peace

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168, I had said: * I have clearly told you what has changed going from the substance of a tree to the substance of a stool. Please reciprocate with a clear explanation of what has changed going from the substance of a loaf to the substance of a body.*
…and you replied:

The substance changes.

It seems that your answer is that no material thing changes in going from the substance of a loaf to the substance of a body.

Yes, substance is what something IS not what it is made from. Transubstantiation means a change in substance.