Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

You assume your conclusion and then apply it the text. Then you must twist the text to say what you conclude. Why add your own words ( in bold text no less) to the text when Jesus didnt say it?

You misunderstood, it is a TEST of the exegesis.

Anytime someone says “this means that” you should be able to insert the suggested interpretation into the text (substituting the word or phrase being interpreted) and the entire should make sense.

For example, some suggest “eat my flesh…drink my blood” symbolizes “infliction of harm upon Christ.” If that is how Christ or these Jewish disciples meant it then when we read that suggested meaning in the text it should still make sense:

John 6:52-56 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us *his *flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye INFLICT HARM UPON (eat the flesh of) the Son of man, and INFLICT HARM ON HIM (drink his blood), ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso INFLICTS HARM (eateth my flesh), and INFLICTS HARM UPON ME (drinketh 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. 56 He that INFLICT HARM (eateth my flesh), and INFLICT HARM UPON ME (drinketh my blood), dwelleth in me, and I in him.

It is impossible Christ would say all who inflict harm upon His person has life eternal from God and certainly nothing in the response of his listeners suggests they heard Jesus say anything to that effect. If they had it is very likely (Jn 10:33 & c.) they would have obliged and beat Him right then.

Clearly those who inflict harm on Christ’s person are not dwelling in Him at all therefore that cannot be the meaning of “eat my flesh…drink my blood.”

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

If any other poster attempted this I’m sorry my search for “results in life” didn’t turn it up.

You missed this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=116288&postcount=122

Now look here, LetsObeyChrist. You keep cutting and pasting, but you don’t answer the central question, buddy.

Who told you “My Body is real food and my blood is real drink” means instead, “Eat is my code word for Believe”? If that’s what Jesus meant, LetsObeyChrist, He was engaging in a subterfuge, instead of proclaiming the Truth for sinners like me. That’s what you think He was ‘really’ doing?

I think someone has indoctrinated you:

Jesus: “LetsObeyChrist, My Body is real food and my blood is real drink”
Someone: “Now listen to me instead, LetsObeyChrist, this isn’t what Jesus really meant. What He really means is…”

You refuse to take Jesus at His word because somebody you trusted more said “don’t believe that, believe this.”

Careful, LetsObeyChrist.

Do you refuse to take Him literally in other cases? Aren’t you a Bible Christian like we Catholics are? Don’t you believe He spoke ONLY truth? Of course you do. So what makes this Divine Truth a “special case” needing a tap dance? Belief in the Catholic Real Presence. You don’t want that.

“I believe exactly what Jesus said, except for the part where he said… Then, I believe what he REALLY meant was… Because ____ told me so.” (I know, other posters… unbroken ordination… one doctrine at a time, like Cardinal Newman…)

This equivocation doesn’t come from Jesus, because it denies Jesus. Truth can’t contradict Truth, right?

This reasoning doesn’t trust Him to get it right the first time and make His true meaning stick through all ages, languages, cultures and possible developments until the smoke of battle clears and time gives way to eternity.

I personally don’t believe that you mean Him any disrespect. As a Catholic Christian, I cannnot buy the premise of your argument that Jesus commanded us to “figure out My tricky word game or else.”

This is the underlying premise of this argument whether you mean it to be or not, and whether you understand that it is or not. By His Divine nature, Jesus was incapable of lies.

“This is my body = Choosing with your free will to believe in me”

This is a lie because someone is inserting the part after the equals sign IN PLACE OF what Jesus said. They are telling you if you don’t believe the part after the equals sign INSTEAD of the part from Jesus, you go to hell.

Ask yourself, where did the part after the equals sign come from? Who said it? Not Jesus. He said the part on the OTHER side of the equals sign. Who?

Besides faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and not an acquisition you obtain by act of will.

Caveat emptor.

Jesus is Lord, Alleluia: “Satan is the father of all lies and a murderer from the very beginning” is another of His Truths. Does it need an equals sign and somebody’s interpretation after it? Not for me it doesn’t. If you think “This is my body…” needs interpretation, then why not this, too?

You keep insisting He was playing some kind of cruel semantic trick that could cost us our eternal souls to misunderstand. That is the underlying warning you are presenting here, isn’t it? Someone you trust more than the Magisterium of the Church of Christ told you that if we don’t believe in all this semantic equivocation, we must end up in hell.

I can’t speak for you, but that’s not MY personal Lord and Saviour. He was the ORIGINAL straight shooter. He isn’t trying to trick anybody.

I’m a Christian so I believe ALL the promises of Christ. He promised “unless you eat my body and drink my blood.” How’s that for a “simple gospel message?”

Count up all the stuff you posted. You call that simple?

Jesus didn’t make salvation conditional on solving a semantic and verbal Rubik’s cube.

 

[jmm08]

To me (Protestant vs. Catholic) really does come down to this. If the Eucharist is not the body of Christ, then Roman Catholics are in great error. If the Eucharist is the body of Christ, than Protestants are in an even greater error (failing to meet the command of Christ in John chapter 6). I am a Baptist myself, waiting for RCIA – but I have given this matter a great deal of thought. We Baptists prefer to literally interpret so many other scriptures, why not John chapter 6? (Catholics are Baptists too, they have Christian Baptism).

Jack Chick says the wafer god is an idol and calls Roman Catholics are idolaters (that I.H.S. stands for Egyptian gods Isis, Horus and Seb). John Wesley’s Articles of Faith (article 18) says transubstantiation is “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture”. Yet to me the plain words of scripture do not seem to refute transubstantiation plainly enough. John 6:53-58 has Jesus teaching to eat his body and drink his blood. The ancient Egyptians did not have our current alphabet. I recall seeing the letters I.H.S. on the alter and on a cross when I was a Methodist. An English non-Catholic website explains I.H.S. “They are sometimes explained as the initial letters of Jesus Hominum Salvator, i.e., Jesus Saviour of Men; or as In Hac Salus, i.e., In this (Cross) is Salvation.” … and that "I.H.S. on a headstone signifies that the person buried below is asleep ‘In Jesus.’ " When I recently returned to the church of my childhood, the Methodist Minister celebrated communion and included a prayer of consecration “May these become for us the body of Christ”. I am convinced that there are presently some Methodist church members (at least in my home Church) who do not know their bread and grape juice are only symbolic.

The Roman Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen’s lifelong faithfulness had a very specific focus. Fulton J. Sheen promised God he would make a Holy Hour of Prayer before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament everyday of his life. Bishop Sheen has a very deep understanding of God’s word. One of Bishop Sheen’s faults was that he would take unusual means (newspapers, TV) go to very great lengths to reach others for Christ. As a young New Yorker, I knew he had a column in our newspaper (much the same as Billy Graham). Recently, I have been reading the transcripts of Bishop Sheen’s telecasts and they have been very helpful. I cannot see Bishop Sheen as an idolater. How could Bishop Sheen’s teachings be so good if at the center core of his being and his faithfulness he was wrong?

If Baptists are right, why do we quote the early church fathers when they say what books belong in the New Testament and at the same time ignore what they said in the same documents regarding the composition of the Old Testament? Did you know that the original authorized King James Version also included an English translation of the deuterocannonical books? See hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html

Why do we get rid of the book of Tobit? It greatly incriminates King Jeroboam. An important lesson for post-exile Jews that Tobit greatly emphasizes is this - how evil it was for King Jeroboam to corrupt Judiasm (no need to make a trip to Jerusalem; keep the tithes and offerings in the local communities; ordain unauthorized priests; make false sacrifices to idols instead of to God; create a stumbling block for so many Jews who won’t know the difference between right and wrong). Many died as a result of King Jeroboam’s corruption (spiritually before the exile and physically during the exile). Perhaps an important parallel is that it was evil for those who started a new Christian denomination (when God did not lead them to do so). And that it was evil for any who started false religious cults.

As Protestants (if your church started in the reformation, or split off afterwards), we’ve been robbed by our “Cafeteria Catholic” founders.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jpusateri:

I fail to see how you have proven sufficiency of scripture to make a man “complete, furnished completely unto every good work”

It is certainly profitable AND a major contributing factor, however 2 Tim 3:15-17 does not say that that is ALL you need.

Paul’s language is very explicit, (vs 16) God inspired the Scripture (vs 17) in order that men of God be complete, fully equipped, which is why the holy scriptures, are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The burden of proof is upon all who disagree as Paul is an apostle of the LORD Jesus.

Apart from fact of Paul is an apostle and Scripture is inerrant we have historical proof Paul is right about the OT:

Ac 17:11These…searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed;…

For example, similar language in 2 Tim 2:20-21 “…If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.”

These verses could easily be argued to say that all you have to do to be prepared unto every good work is to refrain from bad influences and behavior.

Incorrect, the language is not similar. “prepared” in 2 Tm 2:21 is (2090) hetoimazw meaning “to make ready” which idea is not found in 2 Tm 3:17

2 Tm 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect (739) artios, throughly furnished (1822)exeertismenos unto all good works.

ARTIOS does mean perfect, complete lacking nothing, FULLY EQUIPPED (1822) for all Good works, not just some.

This necessarily includes getting the information needed to be wise unto salvation.

Once the OT revelation of Christ is believed (Lk 24:44) then the OT is sufficient to bring one into the sphere of salvation, "make wise UNTO eis lit., “into” salvation.

The OT with Christ is sufficient to carry one INTO salvation, it doesn’t just help them get close.

How about 2 Cor 9:8 “And God is able to make all grace abound in you: that ye always, having all sufficiently in all things, may abound to every good work,” Here we even have the word sufficient. But no word of “scripture”. Does that mean that God can prepare a person through grace without scripture? Sure does!

Paul is discussing God’s provision: “And God is able to supply ye all sufficiently in all things (that ye) may abound to every good work.”

Surely you don’t believe God INsufficiently equips for the good works He created us to do? (Eph 2:10)

Again 2 Th 2:16-17 “…through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.”

We have God’s grace establishing in them every good work and word. Not Scripture.

The Scripture is the grace of God manifested to us: “All scripture is God breathed” 2 Tm 3:16.

It is proof of God’s grace (His undeserved kindness) therefore the Holy Scripture is grace realized. Learning it is by God’s grace.

My point is if God’s grace makes us ready unto every good work. How can Scripture ALONE do so? God’s grace does come from outside the scripture, else how could someone use that grace to interpret scripture, for instance?

Scripture is an incredibly valuable, inerrant asset to Christians, but not the only source of truth. Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

Thank you and God bless you.

V2 Tm 3:16 God caused Paul to notice He inspired all that is Scripture so that every verse of it is profitable for doctrine, vs. 17 (HINA) “in order that” men of God be perfect, fully equipped.

The proves the bible is both materially and formally sufficient especially: as Paul says to Timothy “from a babe thou hast known (EIDW) the sacred writings,” (asv) = if child can know them, they must be materially and formally sufficient.

SS is taught in Mt 23:3ff and Ac 5:27ff.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

With roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, and of those roughly 64% being Catholic or Orthodox, both of which utterly reject Sola Scriptura, I’d say that you are actually in the minority in this understanding.

At one time only a minority believed the world round or that blacks were equals.

SteveG:

First I’d have to ask what scriptures you think Paul is talking about here? Since the entire NT hadn’t been written yet, and most certainly the canon had not yet been determined, he can only be referring to the OT. That puts the NT out of the purview of this statement. If you want to take the position that the OT fulfills these requirements, fine by me, but then you’d need to provide other scriptural evidence that covers the NT. The NT simply can’t be used to back up sola scriptura.

It does not follow that if the Master of the Banquet puts out additional food and drink for His guests that these were hungry, it only follows He is generous.

Paul does refer to the OT with the caveat "“through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tm 3:15). The OT + Christ makes wise unto salvation which fact is proved by the Bereans:

Acts 17:11-12 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

SteveG:

Further, I am still confused as to how this would mean that ONLY the bible can equip a man for every good work. …

You misunderstand what sola ONLY scriptura SCRIPTURE means, “only Scripture” has supreme authority, it is above all human authority.

Contrary to what you have heard MT 23:2 “Moses’ Seat” is an illustration of Christ’s “sola scripturaism” at work.

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

It was the custom of the Jews to sit when expounding scripture, stand when just reading or hearing it, to indicate its authority.

Whatever these fetched from the Word of God itself was authoritative even though it was spoken by usurpers to Moses’ seat, Pharisees being laymen had no right to sit in Moses’ seat.

Their lack of authority, even when they were obvious hypocrites, had NO effect upon the authority of Scripture. It was still to be obeyed:

Jesus’ point was that Religious hypocrisy is NO EXCUSE to rebel against the Word of God.

God is God undiminished by men

The disciples having been directly taught this by Christ, refuse to obey them who sit in Moses’ seat when they command rebellion against the Word of God:

Acts 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

The teaching of Sola scriptura is pervasive throughout Scripture, implicitly and explicitly:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

[jmm08]

LetsObeyChrist:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Yes! Deut 4:2 is the scripture I was looking for to scold my new Baptist Pastor who has inserted his own words “Symbolic Of” every time he gives communion. I was never in any other Protestant Church where the Pastor would even dare change Christ’s own words.

Here is what my new Pastor says when he gives communion:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is **[symbolic of] **my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is [symbolic of] my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

It really pissed me off so much that I did a lot of looking and I now am waiting RCIA to begin. Our Baptist church supposedly has open communion.

I see that LetsObeyChrist has not responded at all to my earlier message in this thread.

But actually, in our Baptist Church that Pastor is absolutely 100% correct about “symbolic”. My Roman Catholic Priest told me that it stays bread and grape juice because the pastor is not validly ordained.

Another thing that upset me slightly about a year ago was that they began passing out the wafer and grape juice in a single container. They greatly reduced the time it takes to give communion. I supposed then that the same people with that idea might also beg of Christ on the cross to hurry up and die instead of taking several hours.

If I sound upset. I am getting upset because I realize that I was robbed (and not me alone). I was robbed when reformers took so much out of Christianity but kept the Christian appearance and name. Sure, the Roman Catholic Church needed to be reformed. But those who left it did not reform it. I still love John Wesley as a Christian, but it seems to me now that he was chopped too much off when he made Methodism.

LetsObeyChrist: I dare you to refute my messages here. I haven’t even started RCIA classes yet. If you can convince me then I would be convinced.

First, read the book of Tobit in the authorized King James Version. And review King Jeroboam’s error.

When I read the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles I learn that it is easy to divide the Kings into four categories:

1) Good Kings. They get rid of all the evil in their kingdoms. Down come the Baals, ashteroth, etc.
2) Mediocre Kings. They get rid of some evil and tolerate the presence of other evil. Maybe just get rid of Baals.
3) Bad Kings. They don’t mind Baals or ashteroth or any other evil. Maybe even encourage evil.
4) Very wicked Kings (such as Jeroboam). Evil is improved upon. They invent new evil and lead people in their error.

 

[jmm08]

LetsObeyChrist:

At one time only a minority believed the world round or that blacks were equals.

LetsObeyChrist has a very good point. The majority is not always correct.

Never mind that my Baptist Church belonged to the National Baptist Convention, where its top leader Henry Lyons had allegations of adultery and financial impropriety against him. His wife, Deborah, had been charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to a $700,000 house that Lyons co-owns.

My Baptist Church is not strictly “sola striptura”. We have a “Church Covenant”.

CHURCH COVENANT
"Having been led, as we believe, by the Spirit of God to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour; and on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do now in the presence of God, angels and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ.

We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church in knowledge and holiness; to give it a place in our affections, prayers and services above every organization of human origin; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline and doctrine; to contribute cheerfully and regularly, as God has prospered us, toward its expenses, for the support of a faithful and evangelical ministry among us, the relief of the poor and the spread of the Gospel throughout the world. In case of difference of opinion in the church, we will strive to avoid a contentious spirit, and if we cannot unanimously agree, we will cheerfully recognize the right of the majority to govern.

We also engage to maintain family and secret devotion; to study diligently the word of God; to religiously educate our children; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintance ; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be kind and just to those in our employ , and faithful in the service we promise others; endeavoring in the purity of heart and good will towards all men to exemplify and commend our holy faith.

We further engage to watch over, to pray for, to exhort and stir up each other unto every good word and work; to guard each other’s reputation, not needlessly exposing the infirmities of others; to participate in each other’s joys, and with tender sympathy bear one another’s burdens and sorrows; to cultivate Christian courtesy; to be slow to give or take offense, but always ready for reconciliation, being mindful of the rules of the Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, to secure it without delay; and through life, amid evil report, and good report, to seek to live to the glory of God, who hath called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.

When we remove from this place, we engage as soon as possible to unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s word."

---

LetsObeyChrist: Is your local church governed by the majority? And you know the majority is not right?

Matthew 7:14 says “How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” If only a few find it, then why give the right to govern to the majority?

A logical outflow of Matthew 7:14 would seem to be a church hierarchy similar to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jpusateri:

Ah, but that’s exaclty what some of them did think. That he was crazy. They didn’t get it.

It seems very clear that in verse 64, Jesus is indeed talking about those that are of the spirit and those who are of the flesh. He’s saying the words are spirit and truth. He’s implying that only those who are called “given to him by the Father” in verse 66] (i.e. those who are of the spirit) will understand or “get it”.

The surrounding verses give a better context.

Please bold the exact words indicating they believed Christ crazy, I don’t see that in the text at all. As it is foundational to your argument you will have to prove premise.

Thanks

 

[jmm08]

I went beyond the 4000 characters. So continuing.

Still Regarding “Right of the Majority to Govern”:

Years ago (even as a Methodist), I figured I’d take the Pope’s view on morality matters long before I’d take the Methodist convention. Liberals gravitated much more to the convention than others. My home Methodist Church now has a prayer of consecration over the eucharist – not because of Methodist doctrine or perhaps because they lean towards Catholicism. Could it be that the women ministers (and woman Bishop) over my home Methodist Church are closely following the Metropolitan Community Church (a gay and lesbian dominated group that also consecrates their eucharist)? Is not the act of desecration made more vile by saying it is the Body of Christ? Doesn’t that prove the opposite? The home church woman minister isn’t gay (she is married). But I think that is where the doctrine is coming from. Here in Northern Virginia, we have better Methodist Churches.
LetsObeyChrist: We live in very evil times. If you are attending a church where the pastor has not said one word about abortion from the pulpit, you should flee from that church. At best, such a church is only mediocre. And it could be much worse.

I should start a new thread regarding right of the majority to govern.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

I dont think you have a clue what I believe. I certainly dont believe in a symbolic Eucharist. I bellieve that the Bread and Wine IS the Lord Jesus Christ. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is called the REAL Presense and by REAL we mean REAL. Your notions of accidents and substance are novel to say the least and the formulation of Transubstantiation was developed to counter the very errors you believe. If you cant see that Ignatius and Justin believed in the Reality of the Body and Blood then you need to read it again.

Flesh and Blood of the Incarnated Christ of the Seed of David. The REAL Jesus. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

No ONLY his flesh. Not ONLY Spiritual. The WHOLE Christ.

The Host IS Jesus Christ

However you only touch the bread and wine, not His literal flesh and blood.

It seems to me there is no real connect between the accidents and the substance in the RCC Eucharist, if such connection really existed the accidents would change as its substance changed.

For example, a well cooked steak is the substance of food, rotted steak the substance of garbage. The change in accidents caused a change in substance.

Another example is given in one of the posts in this thread, that of a table. It remains a table if a wooden leg is replaced with a plastic one, or if a leg is pulled off.

However such minor change is NOT analogous to Transubstantiation where finite material is changed into Infinite God.

A true analogy would be where a table had all its legs and top utterly burned with fire causing complete change in accidents. The remaining ashes no longer are the substance of a table.

Therefore, for all practical purposes, the species of wine and bread are symbolic of the substance just beyond Catholic experience.

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

apologist appeal to patristic thought is undermined by the … undermines their authority completely.

You assert past individual Catholics’ errors of understanding the true nature of the Eucharist in Catholic Magisterial teaching, proves that Jesus’ teaching which He promised would be protected from errors of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit through His ordination starting with Peter, is wrong.

To show yourself as credible regarding Sola Scriptura, please prove your assertion using only the Bible and no other source.

You’re referring to non-scriptural sources in this post. Is your cake good?

Catholics can refer to many other sources that support and explain the Magisterium because we don’t buy Sola Scriptura. God is much bigger than the Bible. Are you becoming Catholic before our eyes?

You (and every other ‘Sola Scripturist’ – I really don’t mean to single you out) by Marin Luther’s insistence that Sola Scriptura is biblical, (despite the fact that it isn’t – see MANY previous posts) aren’t supposed to refer to non-biblical sources. You just did.

To be a Sola Scripturist, you must follow the sayings of the man Martin Luther who commands you on pain of damnation never to refer to anything but the Bible to prove your personally-papal interpretation that “Eat my flesh is symbolic meaning Believe in Christ.” Martin Luther has less authority than Jesus. I guess that means you have less than Martin? But what about Jesus’s authority? And how do I believe you if I must interpret the Bible for myself.

You can’t discern this Fibber McGee’s Closet of illogic?

Besides, you’re not walking your Sola Scriptura talk. That’s why one poster correctly called you disingenuous. Your last post just underlines it. We’re walking the Catholic Magisterium talk, AND NOW YOU ARE, TOO. Sola Scriptura must a very tiny box to restrict yourself into. You gave in to the urge to stretch your legs. Who can blame you?

If you really believe it, and it’s really true, then post the verses and watch as we agree with you. But if you really believe it and it’s actually false BECAUSE JESUS DIDN’T ENCODE ‘EAT MY BODY’ WITH A COUNTER-INTUITIVE MEANING IN THE BIBLE, then, um. Gee, what was that you said about the Eucharist again?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

LetsObeyChrist:

The teaching of Sola scriptura is pervasive throughout Scripture, implicitly and explicitly:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Thus we should stick with the Sadducees who accepted only the first five books. Everything after Deuteronomy was added to the words given to the Jews here.

However note that Jesus condemned the interpretation of the Sadducees.

 

[metal1633]

Thats all well and good and none of us are denying the Authority of Scripture. But the Written Word is not the SUPREME Authority, Christ is. The Written Word is not the ONLY Authority. The Written Word, in and of itself is Inspired and Inerrant, but without an Authoritative Infallible Teacher, it is silent. The CHURCH is the Teacher. The Bible is her text book.

Sola Scruiptura is a doctrine which brings death.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

It requires an apostolic minister guided by the Spirit to bring life.

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

However you only touch the bread and wine

The accidents of the sacrament.

LetsObeyChrist:

His literal flesh and blood.

The substance of the Blessed Sacrament.

LetsObeyChrist:

It seems to me

That’s the problem. Who am I to presume authority without valid Apostolic Holy Orders?

LetsObeyChrist:

there is no real connect between the accidents and the substance in the RCC Eucharist

ALLELUIAH! Our Prayers are Answered! Thanks Be To the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! The Scales Fall!!! Let’s hear it again, it’s so beautiful:

LetsObeyChrist:

there is no real connect between the accidents and the substance in the RCC Eucharist

Did you get that everybody? LetsObeyChrist concedes the accidents and substance of the Holy Eucharist have no relationship with each other!

Dude, you’re like halfway home! Don’t stop praying now, people!

LetsObeyChrist:

no real connect between

You said it, not me! Wow cool.

LetsObeyChrist:

if such connection really existed the accidents would change as its substance changed.

Sensuum Defectui - “The senses are insufficient (so faith must compensate)” My friend in Christ, WE CAN’T FIGURE IT OUT EITHER. But that’s how Jesus set it up–to challenge us to us trust and believe His promises–even if we don’t get it! For a case where the accidents of the Blessed Sacrament changed WITH His Human substance, (and remain to THIS DAY, dumbfounding scientific explanation) see The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano: cmns.mnegri.it/miracolo/tableofcontents.html

LetsObeyChrist:

For example, a well cooked steak is the substance of food

You’re confusing substance with essence. In your opinion, a well-cooked steak is essence of food (I’m with you on this one, BTW), but the substance of food is nutrition, not steak.

LetsObeyChrist:

rotted steak the substance of garbage.

Again, rotted steak may be the essence of garbage, in your opinion – (again, matter of your taste not empirical fact–But I’m with you on this, too–so never let a well cooked steak rot) – but the substance of garbage is waste, not the accidents of a rotted steak. Accidents can’t affect substance. A steak is a steak, well-cooked or rotted. No change in substance. That doesn’t mean you should eat a rotted steak, either.

LetsObeyChrist:

The change in accidents caused a change in substance.

False conclusion. Accidents can’t change nor affect substance. You paint your car, its accident of ‘color’ changes, but it still has the same substance of ‘car’. Doesn’t matter if the car gets totaled, it retains the substance of a car. I may think metal-flecked midnight blue is the essence of a car, but that paint can’t change the car’s substance.

LetsObeyChrist:

Another example is given in one of the posts in this thread, that of a table. It remains a table if a wooden leg is replaced with a plastic one, or if a leg is pulled off.
However such minor change is NOT analogous to Transubstantiation where finite material is changed into Infinite God.

Absolutely correct. Replacing the leg of a table cannot induce Transubstantiation. Only the action of Christ through His Priest by the desire of Christ’s Holy Will can do that.

LetsObeyChrist:

A true analogy would be where a table had all its legs and top utterly burned with fire causing complete change in accidents. The remaining ashes no longer are the substance of a table.

Analogy to what? A table can be destroyed by fire, so Jesus can’t give Himself in the Eucharist? I don’t follow.

LetsObeyChrist:

Therefore, for all practical purposes, the species of wine and bread are symbolic of the substance just beyond Catholic experience.

Specious. No proof.

 

[tmore35]

This thread is over 300 posts, and I have not read them all, os if what I am about to say has been covered already I am sorry to be repetitive.

I take the approach advanced by Karl Rahner concerning symbolic reality. according to Rahner the symbol assumes the reality of a thing when the symbolizer intends it to do so.

In the case of the Eucharist, Jesus, the symbolizer, used the symbols of bread and wine to perpetuate His presence. He said, “This IS my body” “This IS my blood”. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine, when consecrated according to His instructions, are in fact His body and blood. We believe it simply because He said so.

And now, to quote the man who made transubstantiation a household word in Catholic homes:

“What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth Himself speaks truly, or there’s nothing true.”

Adoro Te (a prayer before the Blessed Sacrament)
by St.Thomas Aquinas

 

[agname]

LOC…you’re still grasping for straws.

Read…

History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist: Nine Protestant Scholarly Sources
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ459.HTM

**Symbolical and Allegorical Language in the Fathers on the Eucharist ** bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm

**Dialogue With an Evangelical Protestant on the Philosophical Theology Behind the Eucharist **
web.archive.org/web/20030403222658/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ230.HTM

St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM

Church Fathers on the Real Prescence
cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm
cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

Ooo! Ooo! Me, me!

Since the first premise is ‘Only act resulting in life is act of believing’ we need only find a scripture which speaks contrary to that. Easy enough…

Matthew 19

16: And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”

17: And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

18: He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,

19: Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

…But wait, nothing about eating or believing. How can that be? This thread is what happens when you use private interpretation to try to force your paradigm on scripture. Things get stripped of their larger context. ALL three, eating, believing, keeping the commandments (can we find others) are interrelated and connected to such a degree that they can not be seperated and formulated as equivalents as LOC has done in his initial premise.

From the parallel in Mk 12:28ff much is learned about Christ’s modus operandi. He is a master at debate knowing the path to the quick without endless disputation (Mt 19:17). Also knowing what is in man (Mt 9:4; 12:25; Mk 12:25 &c.) gives Him clear advantage.

Christ did NOT offer another way to heaven (Rom. 3:20,28; 4:6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:9; 2 Tim. 1:9) at the same time it is hypothetically true that if a man could keep the law perfectly he would not need a savior.

To save endless debate Christ simply agrees with the premise “salvation is possible by keeping the law perfectly.”

Then Christ lists only 5 commandments from Exodus and suddenly inserts the commandment found in Lev 19:18 “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” and ends the list there.

Clearly this is the commandment the ruler failed to keep. Now Christ proves to him what he already suspects, he lacks("“what good thing must I do…what do I lack?”), his profession notwithstanding.

Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Although he thinks he has kept all the commands Christ reveals he certainly didn’t finish what he started:

KJV Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect (5046, TELEIOS), go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

5046 TELEIOS 1) brought to its end, finished 2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness…-Strong’s

Christ’s choice of teleios connects this command with keeping all the commandments, particularly the one about loving one’s neighbor as themselves.

Many of this rulers’ neighbors are dying from poverty yet he has not helped them = not completely obeyed the commandments to obtain life eternal.

Christ then gives this man a marvelous opportunity to truly fulfill what is required for life eternal, “follow me (in truth),” let no material considerations keep you from me.

This is another way of saying “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have life in yourself.”

How sad the ruler didn’t leap at the chance.

How sad many don’t today. We must sell all we own in our hearts and follow Jesus, amen.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Gerry Hunter:

We seem to be drifting again, though the strong winds blowing in the thread make that almost inevitable.

In spite of all the prooftexting, we have yet to see any statement from the denier of real presence that he quotes from a body of writing, Holy Scripture, that has any authority. Now of course, this authority is not in question, but the basis for the authority of Holy Scripture is HUGE when it comes to its interpretation and application.

Also, we have seen evidence presented that we are dealing with a belief of the Apostolic Faith that was well established before there even was a New Testament, and the denier has not addressed that point, either.

Unless and until these points are addressed, the denial is rather baseless, and the arguments presented in support of it very artificial and unconvincing. Why, the question arises, does the denier not address these points? (Rhetorical question.)

Blessings,

Gerry

Unlike scripture your post is unclear. What “authority” are you requesting, precisely?

Scripture is the authority but I suspect that is not the authority you request I produce.

Then you allude to ‘evidence before the NT was written’ for “real presence.” I suspect you referring to Ignatius and if you searched this thread for that name you will see I did treat his words on this.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jpusateri:

Wait a moment. You are saying he is speaking literally that he came down from heaven? If I don’t want to believe that, can I say he is speaking symbolically, since he uses that to defend the allegedly symbolic act of eating his body???

I think we have to interpret both as literal or both as figurative since he is using one to defend the other.

My choice is literal since we KNOW he came down from heaven.

One cannot choose how they desire the text read, there are hermeneutical principles one must follow, particularly the tyranny of the text in its context, to know what the speaker is saying.

Otherwise I could interpret your post as though you are speaking about potatoes and just ignore it.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jpusateri:

Yes and in parables with eating metaphors, he explains that he is not to be taken literally. He does NOT in John 6, so that in itself, while not iron-clad proof, is another piece of evidence that he is not speaking in a parable. He always explained his real meaning to the close disciples. But he doesn’t in John 6.

Incorrect, Christ responds directly to their literal interpretation “eating flesh profits or quickens” with His correction:

DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

When Christ says the Holy Spirit quickens (=not flesh) He must be including His own flesh as He is directly responding to their interpretation of His command “eat my flesh.”

Otherwise Christ is a lunatic, answering the objections of a mob with babbling about flesh that didn’t concern them.

Hence when Christ says “the words (eat my flesh…drink my blood) ARE spirit and life” He is denying they are flesh, that He is using the outer (fleshly) meaning of the symbol, rather His reference is to the inner meaning covered by the flesh, the spirit and life contained in the symbol.

These disciples were not enabled by God to believe in Christ therefore they willfully fixate upon their offensive interpretation of Christ’s words to justify to themselves why they would not believe in the one who miraculously fed them along with thousands of others in a great Messianic/Moses type verification sign of His identity.