S
shawn38
Guest
What’s the problem? The CC professes to have assembled the canon (Bible), yet it’s subverted for the teachings and traditions of man in matters of faith.
- Status
S
shawn38
Guest
Absolutely agree. I suppose you could compare adultery and lusting in the same light.
Hence the cup reminds us of the new covenant.
M
mikeledes
Guest
If your interpretation of those passages is correct, then Christ contradicts Himself. Moreover, after He ascended into heaven, Stephen, Paul, and John (the Book of Revelations) all saw Christ. In the Eucharist, we see Christ, but with the eyes of faith, When He comes again in glory, we will see Him face to face. That is what He meant. Moreover, the one who reallu offers up Christ in the Eucharist is Christ. The priest represents Christ. But that is the subject of another thread. Here we are discussing whether Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist or not and John 6 clearly indicates that He is.
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
I have a question for you, since you insist that Jesus would have violated the law if He offered His blood to drink:
Do you believe that none of the ordinances of the Law had exceptions?
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Then you are being inconsistent in your exegesis. How is it that not seeing “according to the flesh” in the first half of the verse means that we perceive men according to the Spirit, and yet in the second half the same words has a completely different meaning, that we no longer physically see Him? On what basis do you give two different definitions of the same words used in the same sentence, other than your desire to disprove the Real Presence? That passage is talking about the new perception of Christians. We no longer perceive Christ or anyone else carnally, but according to the Spirit. If this meant physically seeing, then that means we see no one “physically.”
16Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
God Bless,
Michael
Z
zz912
Guest
I guess congratulations are in order. You’ve found the one thing that our omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God can’t do. Congrats! He can create the universe, part the Red Sea, flood the whole world, etc etc etc, but he COULDN’T POSSIBLY be really present!
M
mikeledes
Guest
No one denies that Jesus Christ spoke figuratively. Not everything He says is to be taken literally, but not eberything He says is to be taken figuratively either. And if you read John 10 carefully, you will realize that the first two examples you cite are actually part of an explanation of a parable the disciples did not understand. He is telling them that He is the door and shepherd in the parable. That is what He normally does when His figurative language is not understood by His apostles or taken literally by those listening to Him. When He spoke figuratively and he was understood literally, He consistently corrected the error. He does not do that in John 6.
And just to give an example outside of the Gospel of John:
Matthew 16:6-12
**6And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.”
8But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9"Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10"Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11"How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. **
God bless,
Michael
S
shawn38
Guest
There were no exceptions to the Law as the Pharisees saw it. Yet it’s the spirit of the Law that matters.
Because Jesus performed miracles of healing on the Sabbath, some Pharisees accused Him of breaking the Sabbath (Matthew 12:10; Mark 3:2, John 9:14–16).
John 9:16Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” Healing of the blind man.
Mark 3:4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. Healing of the man with a shriveled hand.
Matt 12:12 …Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Healing of the man with a shriveled hand.
The “cup” is said to be His blood in both senses, physically and spiritually, to the faithful.
S
shawn38
Guest
Notice in Matt 16 Christ clarified in the figurative referencing the teachings as “yeast.” The apostles then understood the “yeast” to be the teachings.
John 6 is no different. When some of the disciples grumbled amongst themselves, Jesus again clarified in the figurative comparing the manna their fathers were given to eat to Himself. The 12 understood the “bread” to be the “words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68) which reiterates Jn 6:40, Rom 10:9, and 1 Cor 15:2-4.
S
shawn38
Guest
Jn 15:19 … but I have chosen you out of the world. …
Jn 17:14 … for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
2 Cor 5:16 **So from now on **we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
Prior to the acceptance of Christ, you were of the world (flesh/corrupt/perishable/sinful nature) and saw things as such hence the phrase “Though we once.” Having crucified the old, “So from now on” and “we do so no longer” indicate the seeing of the world in Christ.
M
mikeledes
Guest
John is different. First of all, Jesus never provides a correction after He said what He said and the Jews challenged Him. Secondly, the manna is a type of Christ and of the Eucharist. Just because He compares eating His flesh and drinking His blood to eating manna does not mean that His eating flesh and drinking blood should be taken figuratively. For example, the Bible says Adam is a type of Christ:
Romans 5:14
**14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. **
Adam is a type of Christ. Does this mean that Adam is a literal person and Christ isn’t or vice versa? No. Something that literally/really existed can prefigure that which currently and literally/ really exists. Similarly, manna is a type of the Eucharist, it prefigured the Eucharist. So merely comparing the manna with the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood does not make the latter figurative, just as comparing Adam to Christ does not make Christ “figurative.”
Secondly, Peter simply said that Christ has the words of eternal life after Jesus asked them if they wanted to leave too. But let’s read what Peter says:
**68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69"We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” **
In other words, Peter says Jesus has the “words of eternal life” because He believes they are the words of God, that they are divinely revealed. And they believe they are divinely revealed because they believe Jesus was sent by the Father (i.e You are the Holy one of God) and hence His words are the words of the Father. This is a variant of John 3:34
34"For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.
So Peter is not giving the meaning of Christ’s supposed figurative words, but rather publicly accepting what Christ just taught as the words of God (i.e. words of eternal life) because they believe Christ was sent by the Father. So they are accepting His words on faith and not because they fully understand them. And Christ’s words (i.e. HIS TEACHINGS) include several very literal and real truths (ex. his literal death and resurrection) and also His teaching on the Eucharist.
And finally, Jesus in Matthew clearly states:
**11"How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? **
We don’t find that clear correction anywhere in John 6. Jesus never says “My flesh are my words.” And nowhere in Scripture is “flesh and blood” ever used as a figure of speech for teaching or words. The only other reference in the New Testament to eating the Body and Blood of Christ is the Eucharist and hence Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
B
brkn1
Guest
The issue is not about what God “can’t do” or “couldn’t posssibly” do, but rather what God DOES NOT DO according to Scripture.
B
brkn1
Guest
Your argument falls apart when you consider that Stephen, Paul, and John saw Christ standing in Heaven and not physically standing on earth.
Could you also point out where Scripture speaks about these priests that perform the transubstantiation. Paul seems to have overlooked priestcraft when he described the roles of Christians in the body of Christ. Something as important and vital as that would have been often mentioned, if it existed after Christ’s one and only final Sacrifice. Such support is very noticeably absent from Scripture.
S
shawn38
Guest
Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, **looked up to heaven **and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Rev 1:10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit…, but where was his spirit?
Rev 4:1 1After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven.
Acts 9:3 & 26:12-18 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
Key is the telling in Acts 22:6“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ 8“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
1 Cor 9:1Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
Stephen and Paul saw Jesus, but Christ was in heaven. John was in the Spirit iin heaven.
After the resurrection, Christ appeared to many. But that was before the ascension. So we still wait the coming of the Lord as 1 Cor 11 states while breaking bread.
Z
zz912
Guest
Where in Scripture does it say we are not supposed to eat the flesh of His glorified body or to drink His glorified blood?
B
brkn1
Guest
There were obvious exceptions to obeying the ordinances of the Law, when circumstances prevented such obedience. Jesus pointed that out when He spoke of David and others.
The Law was meant to benefit man, not harm man.
You still will have a serious problem explaining how Jesus came to fulfill the Law, if you want to claim that He made an exception and completely reversed the requirements of one of those laws. It would show a serious inconsistency in the requirement for obedience to God’s Law. Jesus never sinned and He was never inconsistent.
B
brkn1
Guest
I would ask you to first point out where we are told to eat His “glorified” body and drink His “glorified” blood.
You seem to have added something to the Scripture that I can’t find.
S
shawn38
Guest
Eph 4:11-13 definitely missed them
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Timothy and Titus covers elders (deacons) and overseers (bishops), but no mention of sacrifices are made.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
***When Jesus told his disciples that “my flesh is real food and my blood real drink” (John 6:55), his disciples took him literally and said: “This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?” (John 6:60). Then St. John’s Gospel reports: “Jesus was
fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in protest at what he had said. ‘Does it shake your faith?’ he asked them. ‘What, then, if you were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before . . .?’” (John 6:61-62). John then states that “From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer. Jesus then said to the Twelve, 'Do you want to leave me too?”’ (John 6:66-67). Unlike those that walked away, and unlike “Judas” who deceived everyone, the Twelve stayed with Jesus because they trusted his words (John 6:69-71).
Now, “Jesus was fully aware” that they understood his teaching literally. Obviously, if Jesus had only meant that they would eat his Body and drink his Blood figuratively and symbolically, he would have said so before they walked away. Since he did not, he meant his words literally and, of course, not sensibly or canniblistically, but miraculously! ***
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/REALLY.TXT
Like I said before, it truly is a mystery. --But that is what He said! And we can believe it or we can deny it. For Catholics, Mass is celebrated first with the Liturgy of His Word and then the Liturgy of the Eucharist. What a blaspheme to not follow what His Word teaches and then celebrate the Eucharist! Well, we are following His Word and that is why we celebrate Him in His Real Presence.
Believe what you will.
- Status