F
- Status
D
Deconi
Guest
(Without reading the whole thread…)
Probably the same reason that some Catholics don’t take Genesis 1 and/or 2 literally!
Because it seems absurd.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Jesus would not have done this. Because it is a violation of the second commandment.
Ex. 20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Jesus would not have instructed them to violate a law that He himself had given them. In Jn. 6 when Jesus tells them to eat His flesh and drink His blood He is telling them to hear His words. To make who He says He is part of who they are.
Jn.17: 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Jn14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jn.17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
C
campeador
Guest
It seems God made a ‘graven image’ when the Word became Flesh:ScrapeTV | Online Pop Culture Magazine
T
Third_Day
Guest
Where does it say you shall not bow down to God. That 's what the Eucharist is…God.
You assume Catholics are wrong in their interpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper but the very first Christians in the second, third etc centuries also believed the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ and so did the Protestant forefathers Luther and Calvin. It is your idea that it is symbolic that is a novelty.
How can you equate “My flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed” with His “words?”
Take Jesus at His word. Take HIm literally. No need to twist what He is saying.
This has nothing to do with John 6.
At the Lord’s Supper, as you call it in your worship service, the bread is just bread , the grape juice is just grape juice. You do not have a priesthhood so for you it is symbolic. It is a mistake to equate your communion with Catholic communion. They are not the same
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Bill, I mean BILL, in the OP you ask the most reasonable question “Why do non-catholic take almost all the Bible LITERALLY, but will when it comes too John chapter 6 they say it is a Symbol or figurative and the Bible does not say it is,WHY”
Ok, Bill, I mean BILL, you tell us, why? I mean WHY DO NON-CATHOLICS TAKE JOHN CH 6 SYMBOLIC OR FIGURATIVE?
Help us out pal.
T
Third_Day
Guest
In my opinion it is because in Protestant churches IT IS symbolic. WHen the communion bread comes in a plastic wrapper and the grape juice (why not wine?} comes in little paper thimbles that are passed aroung like crackers what are people supposed to think. THIS grape juice in a paper cup is the blood of Christ? THIS bread in a plastic wrapper is Christ? The whole process is one of symbolism not reverence. No one kneels after receiving it. WHy should John 6 be taken literally when it is presented as symbolic in the way it is distributed?
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
But your not BILL
N
nhylan
Guest
This whole thread is just an exercise in futility. Everyone clearly has different ideas about how the bible is to be interpreted. Why do you think the Episcopal Church has OK’d gay bishops? Its because they have another interpretation. Catholics are no different since it seems that everyone here doesn’t exactly agree on how to interpret it anyways.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Ya, you see Third, it doesn’t really matter if Catholics are wrong in there interpretation of Jn. 6 or if Jesus does turn Himself into a piece of bread (the idea to me is just ludicrous). The fact is that God (Jesus) commands us not to take something made with our hands (graven image,bread) and bow down to it.
Jn.1: 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
How is this twisting His words?
Jn.6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Jn.6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
If you believe these vs. it does.
1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Apparently Peter disagrees with you.
Oh, absolutely, we do not pretend to create the Creator.
T
Third_Day
Guest
.
Assume for a moment that the bread is in fact changed into the body and blood of Christ. Would you still have a problem with kneeling before God?
You’re twisting the words of Jesus in John 6 not in John 1. That’s the problem
What were the words that Peter was speaking about? The words Jesus spoke are in John 6:48-65.
Again, you are mixing verses with other verses. Stay in the context of John 6
The priest does not create the Creator. The Creator makes Himself present in the Eucharist with the words given to the Church. “This is my body, This is my blood”
S
shawn38
Guest
The whole Bible is to be taken literally. The literal interpretation is what the author was intending the passage to mean. Thus the literal interpretation of a passage may be in the figurative like John 6. If something was meant figuratively, then that’s the literal interpretation.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
However, there is no indication at all in John 6 that Our Lord was speaking figuratively. It’s just not there. The figurative symbolic interpretation is actually diametrically opposed to both what the New Testament itself says as well the clear and authentic writings of the earliest Church Fathers, and in the case of St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, they were both direct disciples of St. John the apostle. That other errant interpretation is only some 500 years old at best and thus it is a modern new wind of doctrines of men.
Furthermore, in light of St. Paul’s definitive remarks in 1st Corinthians 11, we see that he also teaches the Real Presence in the Eucharist, else one could not become guilty of Christ’s body and blood by receiving it unworthily as St. Paul clearly teaches.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Why would I assume this. The fact is that God told us not to bow down before graven images (things made with our hands like bread) I just don’t believe He would command us not to do this in the ten commandments and then turn around and tell us to do it.
So you are saying that one part of the bible has no relation to other parts. Is this an official infallible teaching?
Well, I hate to go against your arbitrary rule that we can’t use the rest of the bible (not so much) but Peter most likely was talking about **all **of Jesus words such as Jn.14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
You made the statement that we do not have the priesthood. As far as I know this statement is not from Jn.6 . So even according to your arbitrary rule this would be open to answeres from anywhere.
I decided to answer you with a scripture from the man you consider to be the first pope of your church and he still disagrees with you.
1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
At the Council of Trent a coucil of the CC and held as binding on all Catholics is
Cannon X1 which states: CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not **required the intention **at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
The intention of the priest is required for any sacrament to be valide. This includes I’m assuming, the sacrament of communion. So If the priest goes through the external motions of consecrating the host and his intention to do it is not there, **it doesn’t happen ** So I guess according to the Council of Trent **it is **the priest who creates God.
S
shawn38
Guest
Tzafun: What is the afikoman and what is it for? This was a Passover meal.
Paul tells us what the bread represents:
1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Cor 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Shows it’s still bread and wine after the blessing.
“Do this in remembrance of me.”
Barech: What about the cup? The third cup of the Passover is the Cup of Redemption. Red wine was used. Most likely it was unfermented. After supper, Jews bless it and drink it.
At the Passover supper, the apostles eyes were not yet open to the OT scripture as it related to Christ. Their eyes were opened just before Christ’s ascension.
Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
R
Ruthie_again
Guest
To see how we Catholics interpret the Bible, read this very good article: Jimmy Akin’s “One Text, Four Senses.”
The answer to Bill’s original question is that some Christians have, like the disciples in Jn 6:66, drawn back from this very uncomfortable teaching. They use any way they can to twist the Scripture and make the Eucharist only a symbol.
Our doctrine of transubstantiation is difficult to understand. One needs to know what we mean by “substance” and “accident.” I’ll take a superficial stab at it, though I am no theologian.
The substance of water is its ability to quench thirst for all of creation. Without water, everything dies. Its accidents are the H20 molecule, wetness, ice, raindrops, snowflakes, steam, fog, clouds, lakes, oceans…
In transubstantiation, the substance of Jesus enters the wine and bread. His accidents - His physical body - remain in Heaven. The accidents of bread and wine remain, but the substance is changed: it is Jesus.
I hope I have that right. If not, someone please educate me!
Richard, in spite of what Jack Chick asserts, we do not worship a wafer of bread. The bread and wine are indeed made by human hands (though they are not “graven images,” but food). We worship Jesus Christ, whose substance is present within the accidents of bread and wine.
God bless us all,
Ruthie
Tiber swim team '06
The answer to Bill’s original question is that some Christians have, like the disciples in Jn 6:66, drawn back from this very uncomfortable teaching. They use any way they can to twist the Scripture and make the Eucharist only a symbol.
Our doctrine of transubstantiation is difficult to understand. One needs to know what we mean by “substance” and “accident.” I’ll take a superficial stab at it, though I am no theologian.
The substance of water is its ability to quench thirst for all of creation. Without water, everything dies. Its accidents are the H20 molecule, wetness, ice, raindrops, snowflakes, steam, fog, clouds, lakes, oceans…
In transubstantiation, the substance of Jesus enters the wine and bread. His accidents - His physical body - remain in Heaven. The accidents of bread and wine remain, but the substance is changed: it is Jesus.
I hope I have that right. If not, someone please educate me!
Richard, in spite of what Jack Chick asserts, we do not worship a wafer of bread. The bread and wine are indeed made by human hands (though they are not “graven images,” but food). We worship Jesus Christ, whose substance is present within the accidents of bread and wine.
God bless us all,
Ruthie
Tiber swim team '06
N
Nicea325
Guest
And was Jesus accused of violating the Sabbath? Jesus is God and just because he Himself gave them a law does not mean He has no right change it.
Did baptism replace circumcision?
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Are you saying that if it quaifies as food its ok to bow down to it. IOW the 2nd commandment does not apply.
That’s just it. I don’t believe Christ would teach us to violate one of His commandments
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Sure, but He didn’t.
I’m assuming you are talking of the Sabbath commandment. Are you saying He did change it and if so where would I find that.
Yes
N
Nicea325
Guest
You mean Jesus cannot or would not change any OT law?
- Status