Eucharist scripture challenge

[windlessuser]

The eucharist does not change you. Read Roman 10:17. It is the word of God that changes and instructs and gives guidance. There is a whole lot of taking scripture out of context with your teachings.

Lets see, when the Author of a book is being told that he’s taking his own words out of context, and that you didn’t mean what you meant when you wrote such in you book…To late I realise the importance of teaching children Literature in Junior/High school.

 

[hmalley]

Lets see, when the Author of a book is being told that he’s taking his own words out of context, and that you didn’t mean what you meant when you wrote such in you book…To late I realise the importance of teaching children Literature in Junior/High school.

The RCC is not the author of the bible. I would never tell the Holy Spirit he took things out of context, just man. For example praying to Mary or any dead person. Looking to Mary for salvation, purgatory(Edited), sacraments(Edited), infant baptism( Acts 2:41- in 60 years from Jesus to John not one infant was baptize), indulgences( Edited), many others that I don’t have time to cover now. Edited

 

[hmalley]

This won’t solve the problem. A lot more Protestants are finally starting to “get it” that everything Jesus said was relevant. Many are starting to see that receiving the bread and wine as Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist) are filling the empty spot in their “worship” services of songs, prayers, preaching and bible reading. So many of the non-liturgical Protestants are now starting to have grape-juice and crackers every so often so they can feel like they are not ignoring any thing Jesus said. Some will continue to believe that it is just symbolic but others will genuinely believe that Christ will become present since “where two or more are gathered in my name there am I”. They will not worry about understanding the mystery or the details but will accept that somehow Jesus just “does it”. The problem now is getting them to accept that Jesus is NOT present in any offering that is not conducted by an apostolically ordained bishop or priest and to accept the spiritual authority of the priesthood. The Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans already pretty much believe in real-presence (of sorts) due to the fact that they came out of the Catholic Church and try to emulate our priesthood to some degree.

So the problem here is two fold: 1) Getting all to believe that Jesus meant what He said about the reality of it being truly His Body and Blood; and also 2) Getting all to believe that only a consecrated priest selected by God and ordained by an apostolic bishop has the spiritual authority to convert the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Jesus could have said: “This is my real body and blood. This is not a metaphor or a symbol but is under the outward appearances of bread and wine my real divine body, blood, soul and divinity. It is a mystery as to how this can be but if you are my disciple you must believe this and partake of me or else you will have no part or share in eternal life since you doubted me and the generosity and the value of the gift I give you.”

If the above were said there would be no room to debate. But knowing the rebellious nature of humans - the next thing would be to presume just anyone could effect the bread and wine. So there would need to be another statement that reads something like this:
“Only my selected and appointed priests who are ordained through the apostolic succession who remain in communion with My Church are permitted to make this offering available to you. All others are pretenders and are committing sacrilege by offering up bread and wine as if my Divinity and are liable to eternal punishment.”

BF

Study your bible and wake up before it is eternally too late for you. Salvation is in Jesus alone and not in the RCC.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Study your bible and wake up before it is eternally too late for you. Salvation is in Jesus alone and not in the RCC.

So, you are telling me that my sola scriptura is subordinate to your sola scriptura? Says who?

You have made some completely false or inaccurate statements in the prior post about infant baptism. There is not a single verse in scripture that tells us to not baptise infants. In fact the Lord told us “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” ( Matthew 19:14). And scripture also tells us explicitly:

Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.* For the promise is to you and to your children**" (Acts 2:38–39). *

Do you understand plain English? What part of “every one of you” or “this promise is for you and your children” do you not comprehend? Why would you dare to teach a new gospel that the Lord never taught and hinder the children? How do you “bring the children to the Lord”?

The early church practised infant baptism and still does so. It is only after the errors of the Protestant Revolution that anyone ever hindered the children against Christ’s explicit exhortation and introduced this new teaching of man.

If you want to learn the bible-truth about infant baptism see this thread :
CAF Discussion on:Baptism

Welcome to CAF - we’ll get you square with scripture soon enough…

BF

 

[curlycool89]

Explain to me what Jesus meant in John 6:48-51 . Was he talking spiritually or physically? And if Physically, then why is it many of catholics that partake of communion dies?

Spiritually. Everyone dies physically. Only some will attain eternal life.

Aye yi yi. I have read through much of the Bible. The Eucharist has so much support in the Bible that people would weep if they knew. If you really want a quick one, look at the original Passover in Exodus. God tells the Jews to slaughter the lamb and then eat it’s flesh. It’s not even a jump to Jesus the Paschal Lamb who was slain (see Revelation). So therefore Jesus being the lamb, we are to do as our Hebraic ancestors did and eat His flesh. John 6 backs it up quite well, what with Jesus saying gnaw on my body and drink his blood (which was abhorrent to the Jewish crowd, see Deuteronomy 12:23 for example). That would be why the crowd left.

Somebody needs to re-read their Bible.

 

[dcana]

The eucharist does not change you. Read Roman 10:17. It is the word of God that changes and instructs and gives guidance. There is a whole lot of taking scripture out of context with your teachings.

Jesus says if you eat it you will have life in you and he will raise you up on the last day. Based on that, I disagree, the Eucharist does change us, if you consider having life in one’s soul and being raised from the dead changes. I do.
You are correct, the Word of God changes us, instructs us, and gives us guidance. He also feeds us with his Flesh and Blood. In fact, he changes us, instructs us, and guides us through this feeding. He changes, instructs, and guides us in many ways. Not just through reading the Bible or through receiving him in the Eucharist or through both reading the Bible and receiving the Eucharist.

I noticed you did not come up with anything in answer to my question…

 

[Holly3278]

I have a challenge for anyone who’d like to try it. Well, not really a challenge but an exercise. For anyone who believes that Jesus was speaking “symbolically” when he talked of the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper, if you wish), what words would he have to have said to totally convince you that he was in fact not “speaking symbolically,” both at the Lord’s Supper and in John 6? What would the Scripture look like? Write some scripture and please try to sound a little “scriptural” when you do it if possible - as if somebody unfamiliar with the Bible would not immediately recognize it as an insertion from another author. In other words, try to “sound” like Jesus.

He would have had to have said “Do not take me literally. I am speaking symbolically.” in order for me to believe that He was in fact speaking symbolically.

 

[mike52ad]

The eucharist does not change you. Read Roman 10:17. It is the word of God that changes and instructs and gives guidance. There is a whole lot of taking scripture out of context with your teachings.

Read John Chapter 6 - Either Jesus is telling the truth or he is lying. If he is telling the truth then why don’t you believe. If he is lying why not become a buddist? I take nothing out of context here. Read John as it was written. The Eucharist, the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus brings you graces without number. I am very sad for you if cannot believe this.

 

[the_hazel_nut]

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:51-58[/BIBLEDRB]

Oh, so very clear… one of my favorite passages in the bible.

edit: and by all means read it in context (read ALL of john 6)… jesus feeds the people, a foreshadowing of the eucharist… almost everything he says in that chapter is about nourishing us… spiritually and literally.

And don’t forget, not just Catholics and Orthodox, but some protestants (Lutherans and Anglicans) believe in the real presence too… because it is undeniable!!

The early Christians believed it was His flesh and blood… period.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[Brian_Culliton]

He would have had to have said “Do not take me literally. I am speaking symbolically.” in order for me to believe that He was in fact speaking symbolically.

You mean like when He said, “Do not take me literally. I am speaking symbolically when I say I am the door, or the vine, or the temple.”

(To all Catholics on this thread…)

In fact there is a pretty striking similarity to what happened in the bread of life discourse to when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and I will build it up in three days.” Why didn’t He tell the Pharisees, “Hey, wait a minute, I was speaking metaphorically”? Instead He allowed false witnesses to use that against Him.

I am sure your first reaction will be that John told us Jesus was speaking of His body. So if you see that, why don’t you see that John tells us that Jesus said the words He spoke in the bread of life discourse were spiritual, not carnal?

In both incidents Jesus is speaking to people who do not believe in Him. Why should He explain Himself to those who do not believe?

 

[curlycool89]

You mean like when He said, “Do not take me literally. I am speaking symbolically when I say I am the door, or the vine, or the temple.”

(To all Catholics on this thread…)

In fact there is a pretty striking similarity to what happened in the bread of life discourse to when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and I will build it up in three days.” Why didn’t He tell the Pharisees, “Hey, wait a minute, I was speaking metaphorically”? Instead He allowed false witnesses to use that against Him.

I am sure your first reaction will be that John told us Jesus was speaking of His body. So if you see that, why don’t you see that John tells us that Jesus said the words He spoke in the bread of life discourse were spiritual, not carnal?

In both incidents Jesus is speaking to people who do not believe in Him. Why should He explain Himself to those who do not believe?

And the fact that the Jews ate the flesh of the passover lamb and that Jesus is the new Paschal Lamb is just a coincidence then, eh? Nope, I’m not buying it. I see you decided not to answer that one. I see you also ignored the use of the Greek word for gnaw that was used by Jesus.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

And the fact that the Jews ate the flesh of the passover lamb and that Jesus is the new Paschal Lamb is just a coincidence then, eh? Nope, I’m not buying it. I see you decided not to answer that one. I see you also ignored the use of the Greek word for gnaw that was used by Jesus.

Did they drink the blood? You focus on the Greek words and I’ll focus on the context.

 

[mikeledes]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mike52ad]

You need to read the whole of the Gospel of John for it to make sense and for the pieces to fall into place. If you are going to take a sentence here and a word there then you are not going to get John’s point.

Jesus lost followers here because his words were hard. He could have said; “wait, come back, this is what I meant.” but he didn’t. With sorrow he turned to his disciples and said, “will you go away too?” and Peter, the spoke up and said “Where should we go you have the words of eternal life.” The crowd would not have walked away if they had thought Jesus was creating a simile. They knew he was speaking about his very flesh and blood.

You can play word games all you want, it just boils down to the fact that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. The language he used can not be confused. The use of the “I AM” is very telling here and it was seen for what it was by the audience he was addressing. It is very sad that the Protestants contributing to this thread cannot see this and I doubt if anyone will be able to convince them.

Why is it so hard to believe that a God who died a horrible death on the cross for YOU and loved YOU while you were still a sinner, would not love you enough to share his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? He died and rose for YOU - He loves you and has designed the Eucharist as His special gift to us so that He can be united with us body and soul until He returns. Why is that so hard to believe - Is God not God, Is Love not Love? Jesus weeps at the insults heaped onto the precious Gift he left. “Forgive us Lord we know not what we do.”

 

[bona_fides_1]

You mean like when He said, “Do not take me literally. I am speaking symbolically when I say I am the door, or the vine, or the temple.”

(To all Catholics on this thread…)

In fact there is a pretty striking similarity to what happened in the bread of life discourse to when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and I will build it up in three days.” Why didn’t He tell the Pharisees, “Hey, wait a minute, I was speaking metaphorically”? Instead He allowed false witnesses to use that against Him.

I am sure your first reaction will be that John told us Jesus was speaking of His body. So if you see that, why don’t you see that John tells us that Jesus said the words He spoke in the bread of life discourse were spiritual, not carnal?

In both incidents Jesus is speaking to people who do not believe in Him. Why should He explain Himself to those who do not believe?

Well, go back and re-read John 6 very slowly and pay particular attention to these facts:

1. In the Bread of Life discourse of John 6 Jesus uses his imperative formula phrase “verily I tell you” (or “truly I tell you” or “I tell you the truth” depending on translation) not one time as he normally does when making a strong point but THREE SEPARATE TIMES! This is hugely important teaching that is unprecedented in all of scripture. The closest are single verse use of the double “verily verily”. This is VERY significant. I take this to mean that He is speaking in the total unity and authority of all 3 persons of the Trinity. God is essentially giving witness to this truth in each of His Three Divine Persons by Christ re-stating it 3 times. In the first case Jesus even refers to God the Father and invokes the imagery of Moses and manna in the dessert - this is Elohim/Yahweh. . The second case Jesus us using first person expressions of Himself - The Son - the 2nd person of The Trinity. The third case projects toward the future when all present are deceased and those who remain in Christ are raised up. This can be taken as a referral to the 3rd person of the Trinity who will be present after Jesus is gone from earth and being the breath of God will restore those who remained in Christ through His spirit to eternal life.
2. He keeps revealing progressively more specificity in response to doubts and incredulity of the audience. He transitions from an initial more mild “bread of life” imagery applied to the real physical person of Christ into two very specific “my flesh is real food” statements.

1. 
   *]John 6:32-35 …“I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.” 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.
   *] John 6:47-51 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
   *] John 6:53-56 …"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
   What other NT verses have so much redundancy and repetition in them? In all cases of parables or metaphors either the disciples ask for clarification and Jesus gives it or the gospel writer tells us what it means. If this was a metaphor or allegory or literary device this would be the single exception in the NT where Jesus did not further elaborate to explain what the imagery/symbolism meant. God is consistent in all things. This can not be an accident. This can not be a metaphor. And really, what Jew who was willing to die a horrible death for his faith would run away from a mere metaphor (ref. John 6:66). And how is it that 20,000 would run away from a mere metaphor after they just partook of the miracle of the loaves a short time earlier?
   
   To remain skeptical in the face of these facts is beyond mere skepticism - its just stubborn holding of new teachings never before heard in Christendom before the 1500’s.
   
   From the perspective of the Serpent in the Garden the lie has changed 180 degrees. It used to be “steal the forbidden fruit because God lies and the fruit will make you like God”. Now the lie is “don’t you dare take that free salvfific fruit from Jesus since its a lie. God surely is lieing and He can’t or won’t save you from the sins I talked you into before.” But this time the Serpent has nothing more to offer for a lie other than the status quo or a false security in a partial gospel that misses essential teachings. What’s that old adage? “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me”?
   
   BF

 

[curlycool89]

Did they drink the blood?

You seemed to have missed that that was the part where they walked away. Jews were forbidden to drink blood, which is why they went away. Which is why they said “this is a hard teaching”. It all fits together if you just look at the whole picture.

 

[hmalley]

The words you will find inscribed on many protestant altars that believe in a symbolic only approach is this: “This do in rememberance of me.”

They believe that the bread and wine (believed non-alcoholic by some) was meant to be done ONLY in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice.

Read 1 Corinthians 11. It is in the New testament. You will also believe this.

 

[hmalley]

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:51-58[/BIBLEDRB]

Oh, so very clear… one of my favorite passages in the bible.

edit: and by all means read it in context (read ALL of john 6)… jesus feeds the people, a foreshadowing of the eucharist… almost everything he says in that chapter is about nourishing us… spiritually and literally.

And don’t forget, not just Catholics and Orthodox, but some protestants (Lutherans and Anglicans) believe in the real presence too… because it is undeniable!!

The early Christians believed it was His flesh and blood… period.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

The early church did not believe or practice this. JESUS WAS NOT PHYSICALLY TALKING ABOUT HIS BODY. He was talking spiritually not physically. read v63
John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[curlycool89]

The early church did not believe or practice this.

Oh yes of course. You just have to ignore St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr then. Along with the other parts of Bible, especially the part where St. Paul says that if you eat or drink unworthily, you profane the body and blood of the Lord, and eat and drink judgement on yourself. Doesn’t really make much sense if it’s a symbol.

 

[bona_fides_1]

The early church did not believe or practice this. JESUS WAS NOT PHYSICALLY TALKING ABOUT HIS BODY. He was talking spiritually not physically. read v63
John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Your assessment seems illogical. If the flesh of Jesus profits nothing then why did He lay his flesh down to be crucified and just how did his death profit us in our salvation?

You are misapplying scripture. Jesus was talking about sinful man’s flesh not His Divine Flesh profits nothing.

BF