Jesus is not ALL GLORY?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.
***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).
You skipped Jn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words of eternal life. **
Rom 10:17 …faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ
1 Ptr 2:2, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14 The word of God is represented as food.
Matt 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Your argument falls apart when you consider that Stephen, Paul, and John saw Christ standing in Heaven and not physically standing on earth.
First of all, it was argued by both of you that we don’t see Jesus after He ascended into heaven. The point of those passages was to demonstrate that Jesus has been seen … in bodily form… after He ascended into heaven. So at least you now admit that Jesus has been seen in bodily form after the resurrection. This means that those Scriptures that you’ve cited earlier are qualified, that it does not mean Jesus will never be seen prior to His Second Coming.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.
And I have a question for you. What does that message contain?You skipped Jn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words of eternal life. **
Rom 10:17 …faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ
1 Ptr 2:2, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14 The word of God is represented as food.
Matt 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
It is found in John 6 by those who accept the clear meaning of Christ’s words.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.
Since you restated your argument, I will restate my response.You skipped Jn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words of eternal life. **
Rom 10:17 …faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ
1 Ptr 2:2, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14 The word of God is represented as food.
Matt 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Heb 5, 1 Ptr 2, and 1 Cor 3: Food represents the word of God.Jesus is not ALL GLORY?
The questioned begging to be asked is this:
Where does Jesus say the Eucharist is merely symbolic or it represents His Body and Blood??\
Yes. What’s that prove? Nothing!You are aware that Jesus could have easily any term in Aramaic which could have said “symbol” or “represents” but He never does. Hhmmm?
I do not think so! If Jesus meant it to be symbolic,he would have made it very clear and those you could “NOT ACCEPT THIS TEACHING” would have not left the scene. Jesus would have corrected their misunderstanding as He clearly does throughout the NT.Heb 5, 1 Ptr 2, and 1 Cor 3: Food represents the word of God.
4 passages in John 6
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,8 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (ie. Gospel message)
Rom 10:17 Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Yes. What’s that prove? Nothing!
In Matt 16, Jesus did not have to use the word “yeast” when describing the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
’Heb 5, 1 Ptr 2, and 1 Cor 3: Food represents the word of God.
4 passages in John 6
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,8 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (ie. Gospel message)
:tsktsk: Did you read my whole post? I said it’s a mystery and you can accept that you will never fully wrap your mind around it–none of us will. You know your Bible very well and I am happy you are my brother in Christ! Sadly, your view of Catholics is biased and needs a fresh look at Scripture.You skipped Jn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words of eternal life. **
Rom 10:17 …faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ
1 Ptr 2:2, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14 The word of God is represented as food.
Matt 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
You are assuming that Paul and John saw Christ with their physical eyes.First of all, it was argued by both of you that we don’t see Jesus after He ascended into heaven. The point of those passages was to demonstrate that Jesus has been seen … in bodily form… after He ascended into heaven. So at least you now admit that Jesus has been seen in bodily form after the resurrection. This means that those Scriptures that you’ve cited earlier are qualified, that it does not mean Jesus will never be seen prior to His Second Coming.
Christ has been seen with "“physical” sight since He ascended into heaven, so the passage on His Second Coming cannot be referring to Christ never being seen until His Second Coming because that would make Christ contradict Himself or a liar. No, that passage is talking about how He will be seen. At His Second Coming Christ will be seen in all His glory and will openly be seen by all mankind. We will not see Him in that manner until His Second Coming. In the Eucharist, we do not see Christ the same way we will see Christ at His Second Coming or even the same way the apostles saw Him when He walked this earth. We see Him now with the eyes of faith, knowing that behind the appearances of bread and wine Christ is truly and substantially present. You don’t have to see with the physical eyes to know someone is present.
Jesus as God has always been omnipresent spiritually. The same goes for the Holy Spirit as God.Now I have a question, since both of you emphasize that Christ was in heaven when He was seen. I want to shift now from sight to presence. Is the Holy Spirit in heaven? Is He also present here on this earth? Is Christ not present on this earth at all?
God Bless,
Michael
Acts 7:55–56You are assuming that Paul and John saw Christ with their physical eyes.
Paul said that he did not know whether he was in the spirit or in the body when he ascended to the third Heaven.
John said that he was in the spirit.
Stephen said that he saw Christ, but no other person present could see the same vision as Stephen with their physical eyes, which seems to indicate it was not seeing by physical vision.
And is there a Scripture that says He couldn’t? Normal bodies normally don’t enter rooms when the door is shut. Jesus did (John 20:19, 26). What is impossible for a mere human is not necessarily impossible for the God-Man.Jesus as God has always been omnipresent spiritually. The same goes for the Holy Spirit as God.
Jesus never was described as being physically in two places at once while He was on this earth. Even in His glorified body, Jesus was never described as being physically in two places at once.
Notice how He told Mary not to touch Him, since He had not physically gone to the Father yet. Why would Christ speak such, if being physically in more than one place was part of having a glorified body?
I have another question. The original precept makes no reference to exceptions. On what authority do you claim there are obvious exceptions, other than on mere human logic?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.
I’m having difficulty understanding your statement declaring, “an exception can mean that that act was never intended to be prohibited by the Law”.I have another question. The original precept makes no reference to exceptions. On what authority do you claim there are obvious exceptions, other than on mere human logic?
Also, an exception can mean that that act was never intended to be prohibited by the Law. So, in fact, it is not a reversal or violation because the Law never intended to prohibit the exception in the first place. So Jesus would not have been inconsistent.
I provided one example, which you have ignored, in which the Law prohibits a man marrying his brother’s wife in Leviticus 20:21 and then makes an exception in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Jesus knows the Law better than you or I and I believe He would know if His blood was covered by the prohibition or was an exception. He mandated and hence it is a revealed exception, God never intending to prohibit the drinking of Christ’s Blood in the first place.
God Bless,
Michael
brkn1,Jesus never was described as being physically in two places at once while He was on this earth. Even in His glorified body, Jesus was never described as being physically in two places at once.
John 6. I describe it as glorified for two reasons, one, everything of Jesus is glorified. Two, for some reason His body is not pouring out blood after the Ressurection, and He is alive after dying. How would you describe it?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.
The difference between a ¨revealed exception¨ and a ¨new light¨ is that the former is given by the God-Man Himself while the latter is an invention of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t think one can compare something Jesus does with the JWs.I’m having difficulty understanding your statement declaring, “an exception can mean that that act was never intended to be prohibited by the Law”.
It makes the Law out to have been less than clear and definite in its declarations.
I would say that Levticus 17 was extremely clear about not eating ANY MANNER of blood.
Jesus said that He came to fulfill every bit of the Law.
Such fulfillment would not make sense, if Jesus “fulfills it” by completely reversing what the Law declares.
This “revealed exception” term sounds similar to the “new light” explanations of the JWs.
Maybe you can see why I might be confused by such a claim though.brkn1,
I’m not sure you are objecting to the Catholic doctrine here. Christ isn’t present in the Eucharist in the manner in which a body is in a place.
VC
I do not find the same explicitness in how a “necessary priesthood” also came out of the way you interpret Jesus’ command to break bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him and what He was going to do in His one real Sacrifice, which happened the next day.John 6. I describe it as glorified for two reasons, one, everything of Jesus is glorified. Two, for some reason His body is not pouring out blood after the Ressurection, and He is alive after dying. How would you describe it?
I find it amazing that some find it incomprehensible that Catholics following the explicit teaching of Jesus to eat His body and blood based on some Levitical dietary laws they don’t even follow. Or is there a big Protestant push to outlaw rare and medium rare steaks? I guess some Christians still don’t believe Jesus’ teaching the if you have the faith of a mustard seed you could tell a mountain to jump into the sea and it would do it. Somehow Catholics obeying His explicit teaching don’t believe Jesus could or would give us His body and blood as the new Paschal sacrifice.
Maybe a Protestant could explain how you have obeyed the commandment to eat the Paschal lamb?